You must log in or register to comment.

greenglasstree t1_javreo8 wrote

The more they promote fascism, the more brown babies I will have just to spite them.


just_ducky_in_NH t1_jaw2wk8 wrote

My mom always said, “Have lots of kids! Outbreed the stupid people!”


Centurion_Zen t1_jawhac2 wrote

What I love is that they call themselves fascist but they take offense when you call them fascist.


[deleted] t1_jawb2uz wrote



greenglasstree t1_jawkoe5 wrote

What makes you think I would ever have a child outside of marriage? What makes you think my relatives would accept the idea of someone in the family having a child outside of marriage?


petal14 t1_javkgn4 wrote

“Keep” At no time in their life or any of their ancestors, did these guys live in an all white New England. These people are effed up


proteus94 t1_javl3u4 wrote

It was never all white but it was over 95% white until the last few decades. Even in 2020 the state is 92% non Hispanic white.


woolsocksandsandals t1_javnj81 wrote

When the first European settlers arrived it was 99% indigenous people.


proteus94 t1_javnwhd wrote

I don’t want to come off as I agree with this guys sentiments or values. Im just saying that New England was super white overall until the 80s.


Darwins_Dog t1_javuxly wrote

When you "well akshully" for white supremacists, it makes you look like one. At least comes off as sympathetic.


YBMExile t1_javzgh7 wrote

Why even try to understand these white nazis, though? It’s so indulgent, and so disrespectful to the state/region/country. Aren’t we better than this?


proteus94 t1_javznim wrote

Because the idea that we’re a melting pot is a super new phenomenon and to understand that is necessary to know why these sentiments and movements spring up.


YBMExile t1_jaw0jia wrote

You are giving these young white dudes cover. This isn’t someone’s 98 year old grandpa who never left the state and may have an opportunity to learn something about people that don’t look like him. These are men who had to have been exposed to plenty of black and brown folks in their life, and STILL choose to see this as grievance. They are beyond redemption.


proteus94 t1_jaw0tcq wrote

I wonder why lol


YBMExile t1_jawk2e9 wrote

Um, wut?


proteus94 t1_jawmfvv wrote

You’re the type of person they’ll look to to justify their beliefs. You’re acting as if New England has been some multicultural mecca for its existence when that’s not the case. You’re willfully distorting reality. They dig in further.


YBMExile t1_jawtw5w wrote

I think there is a lot of ground between “multicultural mecca” and white supremacy. I think most normal and sane NH and New England and American folks are on that ground and can understand it and appreciate it and respect it. White nationalist nazis can’t. And the reason they can’t isn’t because of demographics. It’s because of fear, ignorance, and anger.


Pretty_Network5856 t1_jaw3oyw wrote

Here we go.


woolsocksandsandals t1_jaw4agn wrote

Where are we going?


Pretty_Network5856 t1_jaw4mwz wrote

The Land of Tears


woolsocksandsandals t1_jaw53ps wrote

How do we get there?


Pretty_Network5856 t1_jaw5eca wrote

By giving ear to every entitled Oppression Olympian. It's a magical place where no one is real but you.


Different_Ad7655 t1_jawc119 wrote

Oh we're forgetting the indigenous population that just got killed off by disease, warfare or just driven out. Yeah it was always white


djdirectdrive t1_jay3elc wrote

I don't understand why you got down voted so hard. Were you agreeing with them?


thatcher47 t1_jayajrs wrote

Reddit makes no sense. The replies are petty as well. They didn't agree with any sentiment but simply said NH is mostly white. Somehow thats disagreeable


YBMExile t1_jb0da2f wrote

NH is mostly white but that does not explain why a NH Alt Right Nazi group would hang such a banner. It’s hairsplitting to give some kid of cover, and it makes no sense.


thatcher47 t1_jb0dk0h wrote

The person simply said NH is mostly white and then got down voted while receiving rude and off base responses. It They weren't making an explanation for why the banner was posted. We all now why. Because they're racist.


YBMExile t1_jb0dube wrote

The follow up comments were problematic, IMO. It’s not “simply” explaining anything.


dominicaldaze t1_javnv8a wrote

"Basket of deplorables" hahaha even their lawyers recognize they're pieces of shit


Searchlights t1_jaw6s4i wrote

> "We agreed to take the case because apparently, no members of the New Hampshire Bar are willing to do so, likely out of fear that if they enter an appearance as local counsel, they'll be tossed into a basket of deplorables."

Partisan code phrasing. At least they know which party aligns with neo Nazis.

They could have taken the high road and said our system of justice guarantees everyone representation but they went with Republican solidarity instead.

Good people on both sides, right?


clarenceisacat t1_jaw4jt4 wrote

Gotta love the white supremacist apologists in this thread.


kadaverin t1_jawo3kr wrote

"Acshually, I don't see what is wrong with defending free speech."

goosesteps away


kadaverin t1_jawnqju wrote

Boo hoo, poor little white supremacists can't find a lawyer willing to represent diahrea people.


Ok-Championship1993 t1_jaxmlyg wrote

Lock them up for life. We don’t need this rot in our state.


SheenPSU t1_jawlqt3 wrote

They’re pieces of shit, that goes without saying, but these charges seem wicked flimsy


jdkeith t1_jb0x6az wrote

Yeah. I hate having to sound like running cover for these assholes, but a hate multiplier, if it should even exist at all, should be reserved for "real" crimes, not stupid crap like trespassing (via affixing a banner - shouldn't that be closer to vandalism anyways?). Having a system like this allows speech/expression to be penalized indirectly. We all know if they hung a BLM banner or a "Welcome back Lieutenant So and So" no one would give a shit.


SheenPSU t1_jb3hhex wrote

I agree

You can’t sit here and say “these charges sound like bullshit” without everyone in the thread thinking you agree with the nonsense they (the defendants) spew on the regular

People lose sight of objectivity in circumstances like this because they are abhorrent at the end of the day


[deleted] t1_jawhrpf wrote

I have as much contempt for these chuds as anyone, but this whole thing about local counsel only absolutely stinks. The crime took place about ten miles from the MA border. Those MA attorneys are local attorneys. Spare me the provincial BS: everyone in Portsmouth these days is from out of state too. The MA attorneys probably grew up closer to Portsmouth than any attorney with an office in Portsmouth. The latter are all from the NYC area, I guarantee it.

It’s not inconceivable to me that they can’t find a lawyer in such a small state who will take their case. Have any of you tried to hire any skilled labor recently? It’s fucking impossible. NH: No Hurry. I’m imagining my experience trying to find a contractor worth a damn with my freedom on the line instead, and that’s some nightmare fuel right there…

Unlike these Nazis, I think human rights are inherent and inviolable. Even these scumbags have a right to an attorney. If we deny them that right, we are letting their degeneracy degrade us further as a society. Personally, I find the parallel arguments for hate speech to be severely lacking, as words can be violence (ex: death threats), but even Nazis have human rights.

If you disagree, consider the most famous Nietzsche quote:

> Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.


Tornado_Wind_of_Love t1_jay35qq wrote

lol - the lawyers aren't public defenders.

They likely have enough assets that they don't qualify for one and I don't blame lawyers in NH not taking the case unless they put up 5k-10k in a retainer fee.


jdkeith t1_jb0ww15 wrote

> They likely have enough assets that they don't qualify for one

I always thought that was shit. If the state is going to charge you they should have to figure out your defense if you don't want to pay for it. Better yet, a loser pays system.


lives4summits t1_jayoc0l wrote

We need a list similar to the sex offender registry for these awful right wing racists.


fins4ever t1_jb21bf4 wrote

Honestly they don't need to make a federal case out of some idiots trespassing. Give them their fine and tell them to screw off. Making this kind of circus just gives them all the attention they want


RaMartell t1_jb9mudi wrote

I worked for costco 16 years. Very good worker and well liked I thought by all. Covid hits us at the same time as the Black Lives matter. We Employees were told to tell any and all members who come in the store please comply with covid mask up no eat drink in the store and keep the dam 6 ft. BUT what happens is WE9 Me) the assential employee again 16 years. gets threatened by a Black man i dont know. were told walk away find a supervisor or manager. I find my Assistant general manager of the store. Long story shorter now. He had me HIDE in a room and did not address the man on the threat. he wanted his name. The Name was NOT on The MEMBERSHIP card. he let him go. I was DENIED MY own Rights to feel safe within. I could not call the police. was denied any information of the person . I am 57 years old a HOMOSEXUAL. and I ask where were My Rights. I now am jobless. what do you say of that. NOONE cares . BUT If I the HOMO did something in the store oh all hell would come down on me.


TiredCr0codile t1_jazj9oz wrote

Surprised they got caught.

Why don't they just take a plea?


SellingCoach t1_jawsqu7 wrote

If they did trespass while hanging that sign, find them guilty of trespassing.

But adding a charge for the content of their sign is wrong, IMO, even if it is despicable. This is a road we as a country should not go down.


opuntina t1_javu9lt wrote

Huh. Do we have to charge everyone who hangs signs from overpass fences with trespass now? I don't like what they did, but what kind of precedent does this start?


YBMExile t1_jaw0yzm wrote

Not “everyone”. I think we can thwart literal white supremacy nazis with the legal process. Seems the very least we can do.


jdkeith t1_jb0xb2i wrote

Punishing the content of a message is not a road anyone who gives a shit about freedom of speech wants to go down.


YBMExile t1_jb1bsyn wrote

They are being punished for violating the NH Civil Rights Act.


jdkeith t1_jb1haaf wrote

Correct, but that’s punishing the content of a message, which is “bad.”


opuntina t1_jaw2mfd wrote

That's not how precedent works though....


YBMExile t1_jawje5k wrote

Does anyone go around hanging signs on overpasses thinking “yes, this is perfectly legal in within my rights”? I don’t think so. They do it anyway. And if someone wants to make a stink about it, they will. If I happened upon that banner and decided to take it down, I know I might be wrong in “precedent”, but I could face the music. Or if I happened upon it and decided to cover it with a BLM or Pride or NH Fisher Cats Banner, I might do it and feel justified, but I might have to face the music for that, too. That’s life in public.


jdkeith t1_jb0xe2h wrote

Yes, they should face the penalty that anyone hanging ANY sign off the overpass would face. Not a special penalty for the content of the sign.


YBMExile t1_jb1bc58 wrote

The NH Civil Rights Act would disagree.


jdkeith t1_jb1gzmo wrote

Correct. But that law, or portions of it, is bad in my view.


anotherposter76 t1_jay5gfk wrote

Yup you’re right the law must be applied equally, obviously. These people are just fueled by emotion and don’t think of the consequences


anotherposter76 t1_jay5hd7 wrote

Yup you’re right the law must be applied equally, obviously. These people are just fueled by emotion and don’t think of the consequences


Lumpyyyyy t1_jaw3ztq wrote

I would be fine with that. We don’t need signs on overpass fences and maybe if they didn’t want to get an escalator for hate speech, they should stop using hate speech.


jdkeith t1_jb0xhpz wrote

Hate speech shouldn't be a thing. Also, they could argue that Keep New England White is a policy position not hate speech.


Lumpyyyyy t1_jb0ytkh wrote

Of all the takes I’ve heard on the internet… this is certainly one of the worst.


jdkeith t1_jb0z9u3 wrote

> Hate speech shouldn't be a thing.

A solidly good take.

> Also, they could argue that Keep New England White is a policy position not hate speech.

A weak take, but it's true. Let in More Mexicans / Let in Less Mexicans are policy positions. Are they hateful?


Lumpyyyyy t1_jb14c4d wrote

Keep New England white = xenophobic
Minimize immigration = policy position


jdkeith t1_jb1heia wrote

My takes cannot be the worst because I don’t have a Ukrainian flag in my profile.


glockster19m t1_jaw5801 wrote

You need permission from the city or state to hang a banner or sign from an overpass, that permission can be issued retroactively


HorrorThis t1_jaw0hah wrote

No, we obviously don't. You must be able to make the distinction of why this particular act was offensive versus someone hanging an overpass sign about donating blood or not drunk driving without permission.

The issue here is the disgusting thing that they were promoting, the easiest thing for them to be charged with was trespass in the situation. But you must be smart enough to realize the issue is not that they were there but what they were promoting. Come on.


jdkeith t1_jb0xo2i wrote

> The issue here is the disgusting thing that they were promoting, the easiest thing for them to be charged with was trespass in the situation. But you must be smart enough to realize the issue is not that they were there but what they were promoting.

Right, and that's the problem libertarian types like me have with the whole thing. Would someone hanging a sign that said Make New England More Diverse be on the hook for $15,000 for trespassing? If no, then this violates the 1st amendment.


opuntina t1_jaw2ik2 wrote

If that were the issue then the charges need to relate to that. The problem is that's likely covered under free speach.

As it stands they are charged with trespassing. If they are found guilty then that sets a precedent where anyone who attaches a sign to an overpass fence is guilty of trespassing.

If they were found guilty of hate speach then that would be a different story.


HorrorThis t1_jaw46to wrote

... How much more are you going to write in defense of neo nazis?


opuntina t1_jawdfs1 wrote

I'm thinking of the veterans signs actually you dick. The sign over the highway I pass every day with a heart for someone's loved one. The ones for some kid who died in Manchester and are all over the overpasses. Get over yourself. What a joke.


jdkeith t1_jb0xrxm wrote

Exactly. Time to get all of them in trouble just to make a point of it.


jdkeith t1_jb0xq8i wrote

I'll defend freedom of speech, even for these assholes.


liber_tas t1_jaw7nvl wrote

Free speech is illegal!


TheGrateKhan t1_javntfp wrote

All the normal disclaimers: bad things are bad. Being hateful isnt good. Dont do bad things.

That being said, these people are being charged with some form of hate crime, but not because they simply had the signs, its because they "trespassed" when they hung the sign on the highway. Allegedly, the reason they're being charged is because they didn't have a permit to hang the sign.

All the times ive seen cups smashed into overpass fencing, making words, those all had permits? Every "welcome home So and So" sign tied to the bridges? Everyone else always has permits? Are these permits "shall issue" and no one is allowed to deny you, but you still have to apply? Up until i heard about this case, i thought that anyone could just use those areas as a personal canvas.

I know its "evil hateful monsters" being " finally taught a lesson " but just imagine these people were protesting in favor of equality. What if the sign said "Make New England Diverse " ( considering NH is 60-80% Caucasian) would the townspeople still complain and get this group arrested for trespassing as a hate crime? It still meets all the prerequisites.

On a technical basis, they weren't even trespassing. Trespassing requires you to be somewhere that you arent allowed and refusing to vacate that area after being informed of such. Theyre allowed to be on the overpass. They can protest on the overpass with the message they were spreading. Where the govt says they "broke the law" was the hanging of the signs on the overpass without a permit. That sounds like a vandalism charge, not trespassing. However, a vandalism charge wouldnt seem reasonable if it would take 10 minutes and some scissors to cut down a couple zip ties or strings, so the sign wouldve had to be more permanent like graffiti to warrant that type of charge.

Regardless of the message spread, they shouldve been given the opportunity to remove the signs without issue. From what I can find, they werent given a lawful order to leave or remove the signs before the arrest. In fact, an article from Seacoastonline says that the group "'dispersed without any real confrontation' after speaking to police the night of the incident ".

While today its evil racists being brought to justice, tomorrow that same law and line of thinking can be used against any one of our political, social, economic, etc. opinions.


Azr431 t1_javpy8y wrote

That’s a lot of effort to defend absolute scumbags like these guys 🤔


AKBigDaddy t1_javvd3v wrote

He's not unreasonable- separating the scumbag from the act is important. He brings up a lot of valid points that this is a dangerous precedent to set.

If the sign said make new england diverse, or some other message that we might agree with, would you still expect them to be charged? I wouldn't, and I firmly believe the law should apply to all acts equally, regardless of message. I find these guys detestable. But if we wouldn't charge someone with a message encouraging diversity, we shouldn't charge someone for a message discouraging it. It crosses into a first amendment issue that I'm not ok crossing into personally.


Azr431 t1_jax1rv2 wrote

Making New England diverse isn’t quite in the same realm at hate charges, but cool straw man. It’s not lost on me all the ones rallying for these racists “rights” are right wingers.


AKBigDaddy t1_jax7el6 wrote

> It’s not lost on me all the ones rallying for these racists “rights” are right wingers.

Feel free to review my post history- literally the only thing I align with the right on is the 2nd amendment- everything else I'm somewhere in the ballpark of Bernie.

Again- separate the message from the act. The act has to be illegal, and if it is, it should be illegal for everyone, not just the people who you agree with. A message in and of itself should not be illegal, nor should the message be the determining factor if an otherwise legal act suddenly becomes illegal.


jdkeith t1_jb0yiju wrote

> Making New England diverse isn’t quite in the same realm at hate charges

If it undermines the lives of people already living here I could claim it's hateful. Hate speech isn't a thing in the U.S. and that's a good thing. Punishing the content of a message is a 1st amendment violation straight up.


Azr431 t1_jb2byag wrote

Guess I should add nativist and xenophobic to the list. Yes hate speech by itself is protected as long as it’s not targeted harassment or threats, these dipshits are not just charged with hate speech.

And I’d prefer it if bigots, racists, and xenophobes didn’t vote, but alas, the constitution protects that right.


jdkeith t1_jb2dz5j wrote

> these dipshits are not just charged with hate speech

True. I view this as resisting arrest - it's often a bullshit charge added on when the cops don't like you.

> And I’d prefer it if bigots, racists, and xenophobes didn’t vote, but alas, the constitution protects that right.

Exactly, respecting rights sucks sometimes.


jdkeith t1_jb0yegk wrote

> It crosses into a first amendment issue that I'm not ok crossing into personally.

Exactly. Defending rights means defending scumbags sometimes. People who can't separate principle from circumstances should not be voting.


TheGrateKhan t1_javrfbg wrote

Because the principle is worth defending for the benefit of ALL of us. As i said in the lower portions of my statement, today its these people. Tomorrow it could be Sununu banning all Black Lives Matter protests because they're trespassing on city property without permission. Or Anti War protestors, Second Amendment supporters, Second Amendment detractors.

I dont care what the opinion expressed is or if i agree or disagree with what they say or do. Your speech is protected and needs to remain as such. One day, people that we disagree with will be in power; and if they can restrict where or when or what you can say, you wont be happy.

You dont do the right thing because its popular. You do the right thing, especially when everyone else doesnt want you to, because its the right thing to do. These guys may have done things with their speech that i disagree with and detest, but that doesn't mean we go and do the wrong things to them. It is specifically how we treat those we disagree with, that defines our character.


jdkeith t1_jb0ylu5 wrote

When the pendulum swings the other way, these dicks will be the first ones to complain. Why have standards when you can have double standards?


Jasonp359 t1_jawjoit wrote

People who do the "both sides" or "slippery slope" argument when it comes to combatting racism are functionally defending and preserving the racism. Here you are equivocating racism to peaceful protests. That's insane.


unit_energy t1_jawpzvt wrote

They aren't defending those scum, they are highlighting the fact that the context changed how the law was applied, giving examples.

You may have missed that before you commented but they are defending all of us.


otiswrath t1_javxws7 wrote

To be clear, trespassing is the unlawful entry on to the land of another or the unlawful propelling of objects or other persons on to the property of another.

Hanging signs on the property of another without permission is trespassing.

While I believe that every person deserves the right to a full throated legal defense I am not super surprised they are having trouble finding counsel. The legal community in NH is pretty small and no one wants to become known in Fascist circles as the go to lawyer but someone will pop up to take it.

Remember, no one is willing to take the case for the amount of money they are willing to pay...yet.


jdkeith t1_jb0ysqm wrote

> Hanging signs on the property of another without permission is trespassing.

In one sense the overpasses are owned by all of us. What should have happened is the cops show up and say "take that down." They take it down, and then everyone goes home.


Icy-Neck-2422 t1_javq5mt wrote

These guys are garbage to be sure.

I'd expect that any group affixing a banner to an overpass in this manner with the sentiment "Make New England <insert group>-er" would get the exact same treatment.


linuxnh t1_javt82m wrote

Agreed. The precedence which now has been created here could be used in the future.


thenagain11 t1_javx40x wrote

If you are doing something in protest you do so with the knowledge that you could always be arrested for your actions- dumb ass people that throw soup on painting for climate action get arrested- even if there is glass protecting it and it can just be mopped up - why shouldn't racists?

It's not a blank canvas - police don't want anyone putting stuff up on overpasses, especially those stupid cups, that is why there are laws. Any other person who did that without a permit should also be fined or arrested because it is a danger to safety if these things blow away into the windshields of oncoming traffic. That's why they have permits. It just isn't in the newspaper when those violators are fined or arrested because they aren't racists. This isn't infringing on anyone's rights. He did something stupid and bigoted. We should absolutely not let him get away with it.


jdkeith t1_jb0z0vr wrote

> It just isn't in the newspaper when those violators are fined or arrested because they aren't racists.

I doubt that, but it's possible. The case should be simple then - whatever the charge for trespassing is without any kind of a hate multiplier - same as anyone making overpass fence text out of red plastic cups would get.


thenagain11 t1_jb12p88 wrote

If you break the law, you break the law. If he broke hate crime laws, the state should prosecute.


jdkeith t1_jb1gvix wrote

That applies to shit like runaway slaves too. I’m saying that law shouldn’t exist / violates the first amendment.


thenagain11 t1_jb1iwh0 wrote

Free speech isnt the same as zero consequences.


jdkeith t1_jb2811j wrote

It's zero direct legal consequences. It doesn't mean they can't be fired from their jobs or something.


jdkeith t1_jb0yar7 wrote

As far as I'm concerned anyone who keeps downvoting well thought out comments like yours should get the fuck out of NH. They bitch and moan about The Free State Project, but if the alternative is plebbit authoritarian fucks, then I support replacing the entire NH population with Free Staters.


dj_narwhal t1_jaw1evq wrote

Damn I hope the government doesn't abuse their power on me the next time I do nazi shit.


Expert_Collar4636 t1_jaw920c wrote

I remember an ACLU that defended the rights of actual Nazis. Bigger decisions should be made with your head not your heart. BTW Nazis suck, but they have rights too.