- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Messages
- 46,719
- Reaction score
- 18,773
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You are correct, what they are doing is NOT free speech, but you can bet that will be how it is defended when they are charged.
The intent is to disrupt the speech of another but that isn't what they will be charged with. The political point remains, the intent is to disrupt, quell or violate the free speech of another through disrupting political speech they do not agree with.
The talking is not the problem, they way they are going about making their voice heard at someone else's venue/platform is the problem.
actually they do. you do not have the right to stop someone else from speaking.
you are just going to have to get over that fact.
trying to silence someone because you don't like what they are saying is anti-freedom.
VIDEO: Anti-Gun Protesters Storm Stage at Ted Cruz Rally | Fox News Insider
wait......when did Ted Cruz advocate violence?
I mean, we all know, according to the left, that Trump "had it coming". But why try and shut down a Cruz rally?
can't figure this out. We can't blame the protesters, they are angels walking among us. So who do we blame here?
That was lame.
Bring it on.
So no big deal if Republican supporters start doing this at Democrat rallies?
In Cruz's case, blame Jesus.
You can't be serious. 1 guy got up on stage and was confronting Cruz. No violence and he was removed with no resistance quickly. What a BS post if I ever saw one. You are obviously too lazy to actually view the video you post about, not good to rely on FAUX news. What a joke.VIDEO: Anti-Gun Protesters Storm Stage at Ted Cruz Rally | Fox News Insider
wait......when did Ted Cruz advocate violence?
I mean, we all know, according to the left, that Trump "had it coming". But why try and shut down a Cruz rally?
can't figure this out. We can't blame the protesters, they are angels walking among us. So who do we blame here?
I am always glad to see leftists reveal just how much contempt they have for our Constitution and the individual rights it guarantees. They loathe the First Amendment almost as much as the Second. All too often, these fake liberals are able to hide their totalitarian bent and their disdain for most things American. The millions of collectivist slobs now taking up space in this country, for all their efforts to pose as noble "good guys," are intolerant, nasty, and ignorant. These faux liberals are wolves in sheep's clothing--they strongly resemble the street rabble that coalesced into the nucleus of the National Socialist movement in post-World War One Germany.
The intent is to disrupt the speech of another but that isn't what they will be charged with. The political point remains, the intent is to disrupt, quell or violate the free speech of another through disrupting political speech they do not agree with.
The talking is not the problem, they way they are going about making their voice heard at someone else's venue/platform is the problem.
I never claimed they do have that right.
Trying to speak does not necessarily qualify as trying to silence someone else.
I do not believe in absolute force monopolies. They allow assholes to hide behind the law while tormenting their fellow man. Like a little sister teasing a brother til he hits her so she can tattle.
Don't know of anybody on the left who wants the STATE to interfere with speech. Know a few who are willing to go to jail to silence venal assholes. To deny them their preening moment.
Weren't you still allowed to challenge people to duels when the Constitution was written? Different world now.
attempting to not let someone else speak when it is their right is trying to silenced someone else.
which according to the SCOTUS you don't have the right to do.
please see the various rulings in this regard.
it is why police and other government agencies such as the SS can remove people from these events.
Which isn't what happened here.
The rulings do not support your "hecklers veto" article's claims.
you are now strawmanning the article but that is typical when you are proven wrong.
the ruling supports the fact that no one has the right to deny or stop someone else's free speech.
that is why people are removed and or are arrested.
it supports the right of the speaker above that of the protestor.
maybe if you would have read the article properly then you would have known this.
I do not believe in absolute force monopolies. They allow assholes to hide behind the law while tormenting their fellow man. Like a little sister teasing a brother til he hits her so she can tattle.
Don't know of anybody on the left who wants the STATE to interfere with speech. Know a few who are willing to go to jail to silence venal assholes. To deny them their preening moment.
Weren't you still allowed to challenge people to duels when the Constitution was written? Different world now.
I read the article- it used a definition of "hecklers veto" that disagreed with the legal use of the term in those cases.
The cases dealt with the analogue of prosecuting Trump for provoking violence, not prosecuting protestors for exercising speech.
Oh so you think the protestors couldn't be prosecuted for pre-meditated violence?
No, i'm commenting specifically on the article ludin cited not carrying ludin's point, or even the articles' own point, with the SCOTUS cases cited in the article itself.
Even wikipedia explains how the colloquial usage of "heckler's veto" (as used in the article) does not coincide with the legal usage of the term (as used in the cited SCOTUS cases).
OK you want a reasonable and rational response. Me too. But do you condemn the actions of protestors who act like the ones I described, taunting and yanking signs from people and tearing them up or rushing the stage while they are speaking.Who said that I was backing the protesters? My point is that I support have a reasonable and rational response to those protesters and to not encourage your supporters to physically attack them. Much like Bernie did when he allowed the BLM protesters to snatch his microphone and allowed them to speak into the microphone while he sat quietly on the sideline. Or like when Obama was greeted by several protesters shouting during his event and he specifically told his secret service to not remove them, allowed them to shout their bit, and then said that he listened to their complaints, understood their complaints, and asked them respectfully to listen to him.
I do not believe in absolute force monopolies. They allow assholes to hide behind the law while tormenting their fellow man. Like a little sister teasing a brother til he hits her so she can tattle.
Don't know of anybody on the left who wants the STATE to interfere with speech. Know a few who are willing to go to jail to silence venal assholes. To deny them their preening moment.
Weren't you still allowed to challenge people to duels when the Constitution was written? Different world now.
So its ok to barge onstage and prevent someone else from speaking? No one has the write to silence someone else because they don't like what they have to say. Just because something is unpopular doesn't mean they can be prevented from saying it.
We are talking rulings in the last 40 years, not 200 years ago.
Reasoning by analogy is bad enough, reasoning by a bad analogy is pointless.
People who are willing to go to jail to silence venal assholes would still make them fascists. You argue down speech you don't like, you don't shout it down or silence it because you don't like it.
Different world indeed. Your side eschews guns, does it not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?