You want to ban speech you don't like? The editor of a newspaper? Is it better that we not know what others are thinking? Some left-wing extremists have been known to burn American flags (they own). The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, found Unconstitutional (violative of the First Amendment's freedom of speech) a law against such expressive flag burning. For those of us disinclined to burn the American flag, identifying those engaged in flag burning is informative. Many of them probably worked on Donald Trump's campaign (from Moscow). We would have been better off learning about those flag burners before the November election. Do not silence extremists. Challenge their claims.

Why are you trying to silence the editor's freedom of speech?

Also, what claims would you like challenged? Further, are you alleging that left-wing flag burners were working on Donald Trump's campaign? The most far-right candidate in recent history?

You seem to have trouble understanding Stan's comment. The editor has freedom of speech and so do extremists and readers who comment online. Read it again and think about what speech and speakers, if any, should be silenced.

To be fair, the editorial does not call for GOVERNMENT ACTION against pe MBsons based on their advocacy. Such government action would violate the federal and state constitutions - unless the advocacy fell within a recognised exception to the rights of individuals to speak freely - such as advocating the commission of crimes. The MV Voice is not the government and can call for some persons and opinions to steer clear of Mountain View, Silicon Valley, California, the USA and even the planet EARTH without violating amyone's legal rights. But to what extent should private sector actors respect the exercise of free speech by others in making and advocating non-government action - such as including or excluding unfavored opinions from this publication? In general, we should, in our capacity as private (non-government) actors, allow others to speak freely in appropriate places and let society accept or reject ideas and positions on their merits.

@Stan - I have to admit that I was a bit confused by your first comment where you appeared to be saying that you thought that it is primarily Trump supporters that are inclined to burn the American flag. IF that is so then I must respectfully disagree with you on that based on empirical evidence. Look at any Trump rally and count how many of his supporters are enthusiastically waving the flag; then count the 'counter-protesters' that are trying to snatch the flags from his supporters hands or burning the ones THEY brought. With regard to your thoughts on what non-government private actors should and should not be doing with regard to free speech, I agree with you whole-heartedly that as long as the speech is not prohibited by law; and I would even say not vulgar or a personal attack, then the comments and/or ideas expressed should be left up for people to evaluate on their merits (or lack thereof).

With regard to this article, the title says "Hatred and bigotry not welcome here", but then in the editorial it appears to categorize everyone who participated in the protest against the removal of the statues in Virginia as "radical alt-right, neo-Nazis"; while at the same time completely ignoring the terroristic acts and tactics of Antifa right here in the Bay Area. Furthermore, the article refers to Kevin's interview with the SPLC, a group that is currently facing several lawsuits for defamation of conservative organizations that the SPLC has listed as "Hate Groups" ( Web Link ). It was also recently revealed that the SPLC has transferred large sums of money to the Cayman Islands, and has over $300 million in net assets, but has only spent approximately $61,000 on legal services and CharityWatch has downgraded the SPLC from a B- to an F grade ( Web Link ). This is hardly a group that I would put any credence in as a neutral and uninterested source.

The article also refers to 'the general level of tolerance'. I suppose that depend on your perspective. If you are someone who wants to attend a Donald Trump rally, listen to a conservative speaker, or even comment in local online forums; you see very quickly that 'tolerance' does not include divergent political views and is met with unparalleled violence and vitriol. In my opinion, that article focuses on what MIGHT happen with regard to bigotry and racism, rather than the violence that IS HAPPENING perpetrated by those intolerant of any ideology that does not match their own.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

I see that Jim has bought his guy's line that some of the people in Charlottesville were just "statue enthusiasts."

Sorry, Jim, people disagreeing with you isn't "violence," but running people over with a car, like Heather Heyer was, or firing a gun into a crowd is, in fact, violence. And that's been exclusively the domain of the "statue enthusiasts."

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

@Frank - Where did I say that people disagreeing with me was violence? I specifically addressed the Antifa violence here in the Bay Area which has been occurring on an almost monthly basis for a year in Berkeley, San Jose and even Woodside ( Web Link ). A simple search on these incidents shows that your contention that violence has been exclusively the domain of "statue enthusiasts" is ludicrous.

With regard to Charlottesville, I have repeatedly stated that I condemned all the acts of violence that took place there; as well as the fact that everyone is entitled to free speech without fear of violence even if I or someone else disagrees (the Supreme Court has already ruled on this). The police in Charlottesville did not do the job that they are being paid to do. If they had been, no one would have been seriously injured.

My statements regarding this article are based on the fact that much of the media has been providing one sided coverage, ignoring Antifa while characterizing almost every single conservative event as racist and or Alt-Right ( Web Link ).

Do you think that the violence by Antifa is acceptable? Do you condemn the violence against people peacefully engaging in their right to free speech, even if it is speech you disagree with? Do you agree with the Berkeley Mayor that Antifa should be classified as a gang?


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Frank - I should have specified that the Woodside incident was separate from the Antifa violence, but I had meant to include it as an example of the unprovoked violence against those who peacefully express a difference of opinion in the Bay Area. I am glad though that it seems (indirectly) that you can at least acknowledge the fact that Antifa IS and has been engaging in unprovoked attacks.

I also think that the many personal attacks that occur here in the Town Square against those who dare to try to provide a different perspective, prove my point about the level of 'tolerance'. In addition find it noteworthy that ( as far as I know ) no one who is not a conservative has thus far seen fit to directly condemn Antifa's violence, whereas most conservatives have condemned the unprovoked violent incidents from the right in no uncertain terms.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

I was quoting you just to show the ridiculousness of your beliefs. You said "Antifa violence here in the Bay Area which has been occurring on an almost monthly basis for a year in Berkeley, San Jose and even Woodside." Quite clear you meant it as an example of "Antifa violence."

Jim, people calling you out on your BS isn't "intolerance," it's people exercising their free speech. The anti-fascists have been only using violence in self-defense, as has been clear from numerous news reports. It's not at all surprising that the right has tried to turn self-defense into "unprovoked violence," starting from the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville that murdered that innocent anti-fascist woman and going all the way up to the big man at the top.

@Frank - As I said, I should have stated that the Woodside incident was separate from the Antifa violence. What part of that is unclear?

Also, where did I say that I have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me? I enjoy a spirited debate and I have often invited those who disagree with me to send emails to my personal account or even come to my house or to get together for coffee so that we can have more in-depth conversations. So far no one has done so.

In addition, I stated "I also think that the many personal attacks that occur here in the Town Square against those who dare to try to provide a different perspective, prove my point about the level of 'tolerance'". Do you think engaging in personal attacks is acceptable? Do you think engaging in personal attacks shows tolerance?

Lastly, it is demonstrably false that violent attacks started in Charlottesville. I don't know why you keep trying to make that argument. What happened in San Jose, Berkeley and Woodside were clearly not cases of self defense. All the incidents occurred prior to Charlottesville, and all the incidents involved unprovoked attacks against people who were either going to rallies, going to hear a conservative speaker, or just trying to go to school. By the way, what is the term for people who want centralized autocratic government, severe economic and social regimentation (social equity) , and forcible suppression of opposition?


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, the counterprotestors have used violence only in self-defense. Only one side has been using unprovoked violence to attempt to terrorize their opponents, and that is the right-wing. Thanks for the master-class in typical right-wing tactics, which is to accuse your opponents of precisely what your own side is guilty of.

You do make an unintentionally good point at the end. All the veneration of Trump really does sound like worship of centralized autocratic government ("I alone can fix it"), severe social and economic regimentation (Trumpcare), and forcible suppression of opposition (Joe Arpaio's entire term in office). So the answer to your question of what to call that would be "the modern Republican party."

@Frank - Everyone reading this knows that almost all the attacks by the left in the Bay Area are unprovoked. Here are a few examples:

( Web Link ) San Jose
( Web Link ) Berkeley
( Web Link ) Berkeley


Conservatives don't want centralized government and are often criticized for always calling for smaller government. There is no TrumpCare, currently we are all still burdened by ObamaCare. I also wasn't aware that Arpaio was ever President, but I may have missed that. I haven't missed Antifa's violence though, as is documented in the Berkeley video links above. Based on the videos it is very clear who the aggressors are and who is accusing their opponents for what their own side is guilty of.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, you have to admit that you know conservatives have a history of posting edited video to mislead people. The facts remain that the left has only engaged in violence in times of self-defense, whereas the right has run innocent anti-fascists down with cars and fired guns into crowds. It's frankly disgusting that you continue to blame everyone but the right for this.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Frank - Does self defense include people saying things or attending events you don't like? All three links I provided clearly show that there was no physical threat from the conservatives and that they were doing everything they could to avoid physical conflict. Please provide YOUR definition of self-defense so we all know what you mean.

I want to say THANKS though for your last commentary. I think it demonstrates very clearly the difference between our viewpoints. If you can prove the videos were edited, please do so.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, I'm as sad as you are that the right has continually released misleadingly edited videotapes of events to falsely push an agenda. As such, until full, unedited tapes are released, it's only prudent to believe that they're pushing a narrative.

When will you start blaming the right for this escalation of violence? They murdered an innocent woman standing up to fascists, for Pete's sake, and you have the audacity to blame her and her comrades for it! Enough!

Moderator I would like to know why my post was deleted? The point I was trying to make referencing "flat earth" etc was exactly what you're allowing Frank to continue to post. His claims that the right "has continued to release misleading tapes"......where is the FACT in this? Where is the substantiation for this claim?

Jim Neal presents factual evidence. Frank Richards posts innuendos, accusations and ridiculous statements. And yet my post pointing this out is deleted?

This is EXACTLY why the media is accused of manipulation and misdirection. Shame on you. Let's see how long this post stays up.

[Response from the Moderator: Posts containing personal attacks and insults violate the Town Square Terms of Use.]

mvresident, I'm sorry that you're not up-to-date, but releasing selectively edited and misleading videos has been part of the right-wing playbook for some time now. Two examples off the top of my head are Breitbart smearing Shirley Sherrod (Web Link and Breitbart/Fox News smearing ACORN (Web Link

This ain't new, and Steve Bannon (of Breitbart) was a member of Trump's team, which has been pushing Jim's line about blaming anti-fascists, rather than the right-wing which has engaged in murderous violence. I've had enough of this victim blaming by the right!

@MVResident2003 - I've been noticing the same thing. It seems that when some people make rather tame posts supporting me or my positions, they are now getting deleted or blocked. I read your post before it was deleted and I didn't see anything that was close to some of the insults that have been hurled at me and other conservative posters and allowed to stand (in my opinion at least).

I'm now wondering if/when my posts will be blocked because they aren't politically sensitive enough?

At least now, people can see that what I have been saying is true; that the violence from the left has been ignored for the most part by the general media. If it hadn't, it would not be possible for some people to believe that the right has provoked each and every attack against them in the Bay Area.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

This is amazing to read through. I didn't vote for Trump, I'm not a Republican, but I did hear KCBS's live coverage of the San-Jose Trump rally before the election. KCBS political reporter Doug Sovereign was commenting about how polite and respectful was the ethnically diverse audience who had come to hear Trump -- and then contimued to narrate with dismay, when the same audience were abused and attacked by demonstrators as they left the event (with SJ police nowhere to be seen). ("selectively edited and misleading videos" ??? um, live KCBS!) Similar things happened in Berkeley some months ago when conservative speakers were invited to campus, and hooligans showed up brandishing things like bicycle locks as weapons. (To the shame of a university where once students of ALL political views demonstrated to support free speech, rather than suppress it. I can attest to those Free Speech Movement days, I witnessed them.)

Frank Richards either knows that his characterizations above are wrong, or else must have selected his information from sources that say only what he wants to hear (therefore is in no position to comment on Jim Neal's points about news media). Applause to Jim Neal for cooly answering invective and flamboyant rhetoric with facts. His style speaks as eloquently as his content.

@Common sense, how do you feel about the innocent woman standing up against fascism that was viciously murdered in Charlottesville? Why is it that one side has actually killed people, but you are foisting blame onto the victims?

What happened to that woman in Charlottesville was reprehensible and unacceptable. Not one single post on here has defended it! Stop turning it into your political agenda. ALL of these extreme actions have to stop.

mvresident, did you even read the article you're commenting on? The only person here turning this into their political agenda is Jim, which he does in every article that criticizes the rising, murderous violence of the right-wing.

A young woman was murdered with a car while she was standing up and fighting back against the far-right, and you all keep pointing fingers at the counterprotestors. It's horrifying, and Jim's repeated hijacking does a disservice to Heather Heyer's memory.

Oh no Frank, you're not getting away with that. Who is pointing fingers? I just condemned and said that the Charlottesville act of terror was reprehensible. Heather Heyer's death is tragic.

What is your point?

@Frank - So in addition to all the other inane and baseless personal attacks against me, you are now going to add 'hijacking'? Check the title of this article; it says "Editorial: Hatred and bigotry not welcome here". With the exception of writing responses to unprovoked personal attacks, I have been addressing the point that Hatred IS welcome here as long as it is politically correct hatred; and the fact that some people are defending the unprovoked attacks against conservatives, and that the local politicians and media are all but completely ignoring it, underscores my point. In my opinion, the definition of 'hijacking' is when
someone constantly tries to deflect from the actual topic with personal attacks.

I also found your characterization of Common Sense's comments puzzling. In no way did Common Sense 'Blame the victims'. What happened in Charlottesville was preventable, avoidable, and tragic; however, that does not give blanket amnesty to Antifa's violent tactics in many other places.

You also stated "The only person here turning this into their political agenda is Jim, which he does in every article that criticizes the rising, murderous violence of the right-wing". This is a blatant lie. The proof is in my comments here and in many other articles that I have commented on, where I condemned the murder as well as all the other violence that took place in Charlottesville. And in case you missed it, I also criticized the police for not doing THEIR jobs. If you read the Voice as much as you indicate you do, then you will have seen all the personal attacks against me for "always being on the side of the cops". I base my comments on what I believe is right, not what group is involved.

I call it as the evidence presents it. I don't see how any reasonable person can deny the overwhelming evidence of unprovoked leftist and Antifa violence. Need more proof?

( Web Link ) Source: Washington Post
( Web Link ) Source: New York Times
( Web Link ) Source: Chicago Tribune

FYI, the second link is for a story that received very little local coverage. It is about a Republican Congressman that was shot by a left wing activist. The Congressman didn't die, so using the "If it's non-fatal, then it doesn't count" criteria that seems to be becoming popular, the incident can be written off. However, I don't use that criteria because free speech can only be protected in an environment that is free of violence. You can have free speech or you can have violence, but you cannot have both at the same time.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, I have a simple question for you, which I think will shed some light on our likely disagreement.

Which type of violence do you think is more common, and by how much: right-wing/nationalist or left-wing?

How about this Frank. Rather than throwing out another baseless innuendo, how about you do the digging and come up with the facts that you are implying?

@Frank - I was unable to find any study/analysis of right vs left wing violence outside of unscientific opinion pieces. The closest thing I found to a reasoned analysis is this piece by Mark Humphrys ( Web Link ). I will leave it to you and the readers to go through all the data and draw your own conclusions. However; one very interesting item that Humphrys points out is how many incidents of left wing violence were initially (or still are) reported by the mainstream media as right wing violence.

As to the answer to your question, it doesn't matter to me which one is more common since as I have repeatedly stated "All unprovoked violence is unacceptable no matter who is doing it". I do not know how I can be more clear that I don't support unprovoked violence by anyone. My complaint has been and continues to be that the media and our political leaders are mostly or completely ignoring violence against one group of people based on their politics. If that condition is permitted to persist, the result can only be more violence with increasing intensity and frequency.

People can choose to close their eyes to what is happening and call everyone they disagree with; racists, nazis, homophobes, islamaphobes, etc, etc. While those characterizations may be true in a few cases, in the vast majority of cases, those terms are used to attempt to invalidate any reasoned arguments presented as well as to dehumanize those whose perspectives are not considered politically correct. If you (this is the universal YOU, I am not talking to an individual here) are one of those who think that everyone that voted for the President is a racist or bigot, I would suggest that you spend more time talking to the people who did vote for the President and ask them why; and then really listen to what they have to say. If however, you prefer to think that there are over 60 Million members of the KKK in this country and they all voted for the President and deserve to be assaulted, or that it's O.K. to assault them as long as you don't kill them, then in my opinion you are part of the problem. (Again, all the 'yous' in this paragraph are in the universal sense. (I have to point this out so I don't get banned for personal attacks)


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

@Jim, that's certainly an...interesting website. Do you frequent it often?

@mvresident2003, it's not innuendo when I actually ask outright, but, of course, Jim dodged actually answering the question. The reason I believe that we disagree is that Jim, and correct me if I'm wrong Jim, thinks that left-wing violence is more common than right-wing, and vastly so. I disagree with that, and the news covers violence in relative proportion to how often it occurs. As such, right-wing attacks are more often covered, by an order of magnitude, because they occur that much more frequently.

Let's take the CATO institute, since we can certainly agree they're not going to bias in favor of the left. They published a timely article (Web Link Their results: 10 times more likely to be murdered in a right-wing terrorist attack than left-wing, 22 times more likely to be injured in a right-wing attack than left-wing.

@Frank - I found the site doing a search for information on left wing/right wing violence.... as I said. Also, despite the fact that you have answered none of my questions, I did answer yours. That to me who commits more violence is unimportant to me since I am against any unprovoked violence. However, if you want me to make a guess as an intellectual exercise, then I would say that prior to 2014, leaving out acts of Islamic terrorism (As documented in the link YOU posted), that most other violence would have been categorized as right-wing. However, from what I have observed in the last year, I would say that the left has probably been responsible for the majority of the violence nationwide; and definitely are responsible for the vast majority of the violence in the Bay Area. In addition, to use your own example, I'm trying to think of the last 'right wing attack' (that is attacks by conservatives against liberals) that occurred in the Bay Area. I bring that up because the article is focused on what is happening here and my original comments (and most of my subsequent comments) are based on that perspective.

Lastly, I read your CATO institute link and it is based on a Terrorism study from the University of Maryland. However since the media and most local governments refuse to classify Antifa and similar groups as terrorists; they are not included in the study even though they are engaging in violent activity. So there you are mixing apples and oranges.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View