• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Bush Arrested For Protesting Outside Free Speech Zone At U.T. Austin

I dont believe in legalizing drugs. I believe in removing the federal restrictions on drugs and allowing the states to create laws (as well as pay for the consequences of those laws). To me that is a much more tenable position for the Libertarian Party to take.

I dont believe you can say whatever you want wherver and however. I believe you have to follow the laws...even if you dont agree with them...or face consequences and thats fine if tyou are willing to face those consequences). How is that anti-libertarian?

So basically...because I disagree with you and the REAL rightwing nut job that UT is owned by the people and people can say whatever whenever and however...because I DISAGREE with you...that makes me NOT a Libertarian. Gooooooooood Lord.

No, your disagreement with me is NOT what makes you a non-libertarian, it's that you agree with laws that infringe on the first ammendment, that you disagree with the libertarian platform. You can't re-write the platform to make it fit you (you've established that the platform is something you think is too extreme and not something you agree with). I once considered myself a conservative, but I don't identify with a lot of the conservative 'social' ideas, and therefor decided that I was more libertarian.

I dont believe you can say whatever you want wherver and however. I believe you have to follow the laws...even if you dont agree with them...or face consequences and thats fine if tyou are willing to face those consequences). How is that anti-libertarian?
You really don't have much choice but to follow the laws. I had and still do have the impression that you agree with laws abridgining free speech.

I dont believe in legalizing drugs. I believe in removing the federal restrictions on drugs and allowing the states to create laws (as well as pay for the consequences of those laws). To me that is a much more tenable position for the Libertarian Party to take

Yet, it's not the position that the libertarian party takes; this puts you at odds, once again, with the libertarian beliefs. This is why I don't understand how you identify with libertarians.

Fine...and APPARENTLY...whether people like it or not...the law is such that Jebbie Bush violated that principle.
I won't discuss the law, but I don't believe he was violating that priniciple.
 
No, your disagreement with me is NOT what makes you a non-libertarian, it's that you agree with laws that infringe on the first ammendment, that you disagree with the libertarian platform. You can't re-write the platform to make it fit you (you've established that the platform is something you think is too extreme and not something you agree with). I once considered myself a conservative, but I don't identify with a lot of the conservative 'social' ideas, and therefor decided that I was more libertarian.
You really don't have much choice but to follow the laws. I had and still do have the impression that you agree with laws abridgining free speech.
Yet, it's not the position that the libertarian party takes; this puts you at odds, once again, with the libertarian beliefs. This is why I don't understand how you identify with libertarians.
I won't discuss the law, but I don't believe he was violating that priniciple.

Dont be silly. Of COURSE you can disagree with platforms. God or the blessings of primordial oooze gave you a brain.

You say I "agree with the law"...which tells me you havent once seen my NUMEROUS statements that its not a MATTER of whether or not you AGREE with the law...but you still have to FOLLOW the law.

So...you are right. No way around it. I am not a mindless libertarian ideologue. I dare to have a few positions and beliefs differing from the libertarians. You can have my magic decoder ring and I will understand when you dont invite me to the next election victory party...darn...I was SO looking forward to that event.
 
Dont be silly. Of COURSE you can disagree with platforms.
Yes, but when you disagree with as much or more as you agree with, does it really make sense for you to say you're still part of that party?
God or the blessings of primordial oooze gave you a brain.
Or both. There's that whole creation and evolution patchwork quilt idea too.
You say I "agree with the law"...which tells me you havent once seen my NUMEROUS statements that its not a MATTER of whether or not you AGREE with the law...but you still have to FOLLOW the law.
I know what you've said. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that you agree with it, no?
So...you are right. No way around it. I am not a mindless libertarian ideologue. I dare to have a few positions and beliefs differing from the libertarians. You can have my magic decoder ring and I will understand when you dont invite me to the next election victory party...darn...I was SO looking forward to that event.
Define a few? I don't think you are mindless; but I don't think I'm mindless either.
Go to whatever election party you'd like too, although I'm curious as to which one YOU would decide to go to.

No need to get huffy and defensive. I really just don't understand why you affiliate yourself with the libertarians... Perhaps you could summarize your beliefs as I summarized mine earlier? Maybe that will clear things up. I'm more confused than angry etc. I hope I'm not offending you.
 
But the property itself is privately owned.

And somebody owns UT Austin as well. It isn't everyone in TX. If you don't like. That's one thing, but the university isn't everyone's.
 
Last edited:
Dont BELIEVE in them or disagree with HAVING them? Night and day two different things. One is a platform position you could even work on to change...one is an expression of complete disconnection with anything resembling this little thing we call 'reality'.

We only need one law actually (well a system of tort law as well) and that law would be the non-aggression principle, and we only need one right, the right to self ownership.
 
Yes, but when you disagree with as much or more as you agree with, does it really make sense for you to say you're still part of that party?
Or both. There's that whole creation and evolution patchwork quilt idea too.
I know what you've said. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that you agree with it, no?
Define a few? I don't think you are mindless; but I don't think I'm mindless either.
Go to whatever election party you'd like too, although I'm curious as to which one YOU would decide to go to.
No need to get huffy and defensive. I really just don't understand why you affiliate yourself with the libertarians... Perhaps you could summarize your beliefs as I summarized mine earlier? Maybe that will clear things up. I'm more confused than angry etc. I hope I'm not offending you.

I dont think I have ever been 'offended' by online blogs. Annoyed at times...sure...and really...not now...nor by you. its fine.

I have said probably half a dozen times now...it doesnt MATTER what OPINION is regarding the OP. Think about it for a second. I have said a few hundred posts ago and on several occasions that all that assclown had to do was take his merry band of jackasses a 100 yards to the public sidewalk as they were asked (very politely I might add) and none of this would have been an issue. But thats the point...he WANTED it to be an issue. Notice...none of the other clowns followed his lead and got arrested. Just him. Aint 'civil disobedience' a fun thing. And waving the 'press pass' like he was acting in the capacity of a member of the press...priceless.

SO for the record. I think he is an asshole. A smarmy little asshole. Do I believe in peoples right to free speech? Sure...absolutely. Just follow a few basic rules. I also believe the UT has a right to enforce their rules (and I think people that cling to this idiotic notion that the UT is a 'public' institution and therefore THEIRS to do whatever they want, whenever, and however they want are either intentionally foolish or simply that badly deluded and probably dont have as firm a grasp on the law and constitution as they like to think they have).

With regard to the libertarian party...this comes up every time someone brings up the whole "what is a 'real' libertarian argument. Ive told you why I take the libertarian position. I am for individial, state, and federal rights, in that order. I believe we need SOME government...just responsible government. I believe we need a fiscally responsible government.

But I am not for anarchy and like it or not...when you take a position in opposition to the law you will be punished. Try going 105 on the highway at 3 am...see if you dont get a ticket. Now try to go to court and fight it by saying its your right to go 105 provided you dont hurt anyone. Good luck with that. then post your hatred for the nazi police force for ticketing you and the communist regime that dared enforce the law.

I say again...ask yourself WHY the Libertarian party has NO ELECTED REPRESENTATION. When is a party not a Party?
 
I dont think I have ever been 'offended' by online blogs. Annoyed at times...sure...and really...not now...nor by you. its fine.

I have said probably half a dozen times now...it doesnt MATTER what OPINION is regarding the OP. Think about it for a second. I have said a few hundred posts ago and on several occasions that all that assclown had to do was take his merry band of jackasses a 100 yards to the public sidewalk as they were asked (very politely I might add) and none of this would have been an issue. But thats the point...he WANTED it to be an issue. Notice...none of the other clowns followed his lead and got arrested. Just him. Aint 'civil disobedience' a fun thing. And waving the 'press pass' like he was acting in the capacity of a member of the press...priceless.

SO for the record. I think he is an asshole. A smarmy little asshole. Do I believe in peoples right to free speech? Sure...absolutely. Just follow a few basic rules. I also believe the UT has a right to enforce their rules (and I think people that cling to this idiotic notion that the UT is a 'public' institution and therefore THEIRS to do whatever they want, whenever, and however they want are either intentionally foolish or simply that badly deluded and probably dont have as firm a grasp on the law and constitution as they like to think they have).

With regard to the libertarian party...this comes up every time someone brings up the whole "what is a 'real' libertarian argument. Ive told you why I take the libertarian position. I am for individial, state, and federal rights, in that order. I believe we need SOME government...just responsible government. I believe we need a fiscally responsible government.

But I am not for anarchy and like it or not...when you take a position in opposition to the law you will be punished. Try going 105 on the highway at 3 am...see if you dont get a ticket. Now try to go to court and fight it by saying its your right to go 105 provided you dont hurt anyone. Good luck with that. then post your hatred for the nazi police force for ticketing you and the communist regime that dared enforce the law.

I say again...ask yourself WHY the Libertarian party has NO ELECTED REPRESENTATION. When is a party not a Party?

I don't think any intelligent libertarian would argue for your right to drive 105 mph, because it has a significant chance of infringing on another's life and liberty.
 
We only need one law actually (well a system of tort law as well) and that law would be the non-aggression principle, and we only need one right, the right to self ownership.

ummm...thats two laws...(well..three actually)...

and all of that presupposes that everyone is willing to follow those very basic and simple laws. How you seein that working out?

and someone 'owns' you? Who 'owns' public land? And what IS public land after all?
 
Last edited:
I don't think any intelligent libertarian would argue for your right to drive 105 mph, because it has a significant chance of infringing on another's life and liberty.

Really? How so? They do it on thew autobahn all the time...and at 3 am? No traffic? And you can be ticketed based on the POTENTIAL to violate someone elses rights/ So there ARE laws that people have to follow that others might view as an infringement on their rights that you find acceptable?

I ask yet AGAIN... why do all you 'real' libertarians think the Libertarian party has NO ELECTED REPRESENTATION. When is a party not a Party?
 
You know, I saw a lot of people supporting the arrests of Liberals after George Bush created the concept of free speech zones. Where was the outcry from them then?

Free speech zones were anti free speech then, and they are anti free speech now. Obama, for all his talk, looks a lot like George Bush.

I have to agree. Free speech zones shouldn't be allowed to exist. I shouldn't have to stand in a pen to voice dissent.
 
Really? How so? They do it on thew autobahn all the time...and at 3 am? No traffic? And you can be ticketed based on the POTENTIAL to violate someone elses rights/ So there ARE laws that people have to follow that others might view as an infringement on their rights that you find acceptable?

I ask yet AGAIN... why do all you 'real' libertarians think the Libertarian party has NO ELECTED REPRESENTATION. When is a party not a Party?

I don't see a distinction between "real" libertarians and other libertarians. It's pretty close to a black-white thing. I do believe there should be laws on dangerous acts that have risks due to human error or otherwise that have a potential harm others.

I can't speak with regards to the Autobahn. I've never driven it or even seen it. It may well be safe to drive at such speeds, I simply don't know.

Assuming you're addressing me as a 'real' libertarian, probably similar to the reasons why gays don't have the right to marry--misconceptions and bigotry.
 
people that profess to know what is or isnt against the law are just about the funniest people I know. OBVIOUSLY...you are right and they are wrong.

You can DISAGREE with the arrest all day long. You can believe he SHOULD have the right to be a self agrandizing asshole on any public land he chooses without fear of running afoul of the law. Believeing it to the case does not MAKE it the case.

Laugh away, even though you are absolutely correct according to black-letter law in the State of Texas:

Sec. 51.209. UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS; REFUSAL OF ENTRY, EJECTION, IDENTIFICATION. The governing board of a state institution of higher education or its authorized representatives may refuse to allow persons having no legitimate business to enter on property under the board's control, and may eject any undesirable person from the property on his refusal to leave peaceably on request. Identification may be required of any person on the property.
Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 3072, ch. 1024, art. 1, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1971.

Texas Statutes

Also note the effective date of the law: 9/1/1971 - it has nothing to do with free speech zones. It's the law in Texas (and has been for 2 generations) that if the governing board (or their representative - in this case, UTPD) asks you to leave, you have to leave. Period. I know of no jurisdiction in the country that would consider a political protest for which no permit has been issued to be "legitimate business."

It doesn't matter if you are praying to Thor in the middle of a grassy area with no one else around you. It doesn't matter if you are "exercising your right to free speech." It doesn't matter if you are there gathering information as a journalist. If they ask you to leave and you refuse, you are subject to arrest and prosecution under Title 3, Ch. 51. If you feel that your removal was a violation of your rights, then your recourse is to pursue the matter in civil court. However, as Plaintiff, the burden of proof is on you, not the University as Respondent. The burden of proof in such a case would be a pretty high bar to clear.
 
We only need one law actually (well a system of tort law as well) and that law would be the non-aggression principle, and we only need one right, the right to self ownership.

If you really want to boil it down, we only need one right: to do whatever you please.

The converse of that is that we only need one law: you must accept any and all consequences for your actions.

But I'm no anarchist, so I won't advocate that.
 
Laugh away, even though you are absolutely correct according to black-letter law in the State of Texas:



Texas Statutes

Also note the effective date of the law: 9/1/1971 - it has nothing to do with free speech zones. It's the law in Texas (and has been for 2 generations) that if the governing board (or their representative - in this case, UTPD) asks you to leave, you have to leave. Period. I know of no jurisdiction in the country that would consider a political protest for which no permit has been issued to be "legitimate business."

It doesn't matter if you are praying to Thor in the middle of a grassy area with no one else around you. It doesn't matter if you are "exercising your right to free speech." It doesn't matter if you are there gathering information as a journalist. If they ask you to leave and you refuse, you are subject to arrest and prosecution under Title 3, Ch. 51. If you feel that your removal was a violation of your rights, then your recourse is to pursue the matter in civil court. However, as Plaintiff, the burden of proof is on you, not the University as Respondent. The burden of proof in such a case would be a pretty high bar to clear.

Thanks for the info, I wasn't able to turn any of this up in my brief search. I certainly don't agree with the law here, thankfully I'm not in Texas (I wonder if there is a simillar statute here).
 
I have to agree. Free speech zones shouldn't be allowed to exist. I shouldn't have to stand in a pen to voice dissent.

They don't, really.

You're free to write an Op-Ed or send out a mailer.

You're free to speak on your own property anytime you like.

But private property and public space raises issues of public safety etc. It's not unreasonable to allow cities to control crowds and demonstrations -- to prevent damage to property or injury to individuals.

The right of a student to cross campus without having to wade through some unruly mob trumps your right to just start a rally on private property anytime you want.

The University has to be able to conduct business and keep students safe.

There is a good amount of case law on this, SCOTUS is not on your side.
 
Last edited:
The SCOTUS also has a habbit of using the their power to spin the Constitution in a way that may not have originally been intended.
They don't, really.

You're free to write an Op-Ed or send out a mailer.

You're free to speak on your own property anytime you like.

But private property and public space raises issues of public safety etc. It's not unreasonable to allow cities to control crowds and demonstrations -- to prevent damage to property or injury to individuals.

The right of a student to cross campus without having to wade through some unruly mob trumps your right to just start a rally on private property anytime you want.

The University has to be able to conduct business and keep students safe.

There is a good amount of case law on this, SCOTUS is not on your side.
 
The SCOTUS also has a habbit of using the their power to spin the Constitution in a way that may not have originally been intended.

You mean like child porn?

Or imminent lawless action?

Or libel/slander?

Defamation?

The Miller Test?

Which one(s) do you have a problem with?
 
Anyone who thinks that they have free reign on government property is bound to get a reality check from the cops.
 
Anyone who thinks that they have free reign on government property is bound to get a reality check from the cops.

Thinking they do and they have a right to is completely different. Think they have a right to free speech and peaceful assembly on government property is quite different as well.
 
You mean like child porn?

Or imminent lawless action?

Or libel/slander?

Defamation?

The Miller Test?

Which one(s) do you have a problem with?

Oh please, give me a break.
 
Thinking they do and they have a right to is completely different. Think they have a right to free speech and peaceful assembly on government property is quite different as well.

And as shown beofre, you can't have free reign on government property. Government property and open property aren't always one and the same for all intents and purposes.
 
Back
Top Bottom