Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

[Harshaw]

I think there's an important distinction to be made between people attending meetings to ask legitimate questions (even questions that were written by someone else)...and people attending meetings for the purpose of disrupting them and making it difficult/impossible for anyone else to ask questions or for the congressperson to answer them.

Perhaps, in some respects, assuming that's all they did. But there's very little difference between it and the Obama Action Wires sent out to get people to jam-pack the phone lines in protest on radio shows where someone critical of Obama is a guest.

 

[celticlord]

Perhaps, in some respects, assuming that's all they did. But there's very little difference between it and the Obama Action Wires sent out to get people to jam-pack the phone lines in protest on radio shows where someone critical of Obama is a guest.

Ultimately, what we are seeing is the Anti-Republicans are getting their own tactics turned against them and they've now decided such tactics are unfair. They can dish it out but they can't take it.

Perhaps they should start calling themselves the Glass Jaw Party.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Ultimately, what we are seeing is the Anti-Republicans are getting their own tactics turned against them and they've now decided such tactics are unfair. They can dish it out but they can't take it.

Perhaps they should start calling themselves the Glass Jaw Party.

That is the funniest thing about this current ruling body, they accused people of using sycophants, while they use sycophants, they accuse people without solid proof of paying for protesters, after they've been proven to do so, etc.

 

[Kal'Stang]

So if a group of unruly protesters attends a town hall meeting & blasts air horns so that no speaker can be heard, that's OK because no violence was used??? (Honest answer please)

Yes. It is their right as far as I'm concerned. Remember the 1st Amendment just guarantee's free speech. It does not guarantee for you to be heard. There is no amendment which gaurantee's it.

 

[Devil505]

Yes. It is their right as far as I'm concerned. Remember the 1st Amendment just guarantee's free speech. It does not guarantee for you to be heard. There is no amendment which gaurantee's it.

You have a right to your opinion...which would prevent anyone from stopping a loud street party in front of their house at 3:00am on a school night.....Totally anarchy is what you offer us.
Sorry......I think most of us would disagree with you.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You have a right to your opinion...which would prevent anyone from stopping a loud street party in front of their house at 3:00am on a school night.....Totally anarchy is what you offer us.
Sorry......I think most of us would disagree with you.

Anarchy? Hardly. What I have said is exactly what has happened the past 200+ years.

And comparing a street party to a protest is apples and oranges. There is only one limit on Free Speech. And that is that it cannot foment violence. IE: Put someone in danger.

 

[Devil505]

Anarchy? Hardly. What I have said is exactly what has happened the past 200+ years.

And comparing a street party to a protest is apples and oranges. There is only one limit on Free Speech. And that is that it cannot foment violence. IE: Put someone in danger.

You proposed making any non-violent meeting/party/whatever unstoppable by the police. No matter how loud it got or how many people they were preventing from getting a good night sleep.
That's anarchy where I come from.

 

[Harshaw]

You proposed making any non-violent meeting/party/whatever unstoppable by the police. No matter how loud it got or how many people they were preventing from getting a good night sleep.
That's anarchy where I come from.

Until they're being loud for something you agree with, of course.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You proposed making any non-violent meeting/party/whatever unstoppable by the police. No matter how loud it got or how many people they were preventing from getting a good night sleep.
That's anarchy where I come from.

Were we not talking about Protests? Are you changing the bar now? Meh don't matter. First I never proposed that it was unstoppable. Because it is. IF it poses danger to people. Which a party at 3 am does pose a danger. If indirectly. It keeps people awake. People that do not get enough sleep tend to make mistakes. And making a mistake while driving to work can cost peoples lives. Which is why there are laws against a certain amount of noise past a certain hour.

 

[Devil505]

Were we not talking about Protests? Are you changing the bar now? Meh don't matter. First I never proposed that it was unstoppable. Because it is. IF it poses danger to people. Which a party at 3 am does pose a danger. If indirectly. It keeps people awake. People that do not get enough sleep tend to make mistakes. And making a mistake while driving to work can cost peoples lives. Which is why there are laws against a certain amount of noise past a certain hour.

Oh man......Here we go off into the semantics weeds where you guys live. Count me out.:2wave:

 

[Kal'Stang]

Oh man......Here we go off into the semantics weeds where you guys live. Count me out.:2wave:

In case you hadn't noticed the government thrives on semantics. If you are trying to get people to agree to a law which limits free speech then you are going to have to deal with semantics. Personally I don't like them either. But I will use em when it is warrented. And since we are dealing with the law, it is warrented.

 

[Devil505]

In case you hadn't noticed the government thrives on semantics. If you are trying to get people to agree to a law which limits free speech then you are going to have to deal with semantics. Personally I don't like them either. But I will use em when it is warrented. And since we are dealing with the law, it is warrented.

Knock yourself out. (don't forget to turn the light out when you're done)

 

[Lakryte]

Disturbing the peace by making loud noise and yelling really has more to do with residential situations (i.e. loud neighbors/party) not a protest. Disturbing the peace really does not have much to do with the 1st amendment.

And for the record, the 1st amendment includes numerous rights. One of them is the right to free speech, the other is the right to peaceably assemble. Nowhere does the amendment say that we must speak peacefully, only assemble peacefully.

Yelling loudly in protest and being rude is not against the law. Throwing rocks at people and protesting is. But being verbally "un-peaceable" is not illegal.

 

[Devil505]

Disturbing the peace by making loud noise and yelling really has more to do with residential situations (i.e. loud neighbors/party) not a protest.

OK..Then arrest them for "creating a public nuisance"...."Disorderly conduct"...."Attempting to piss of a police officer"...What the hell difference does it make what you call it? (off into the weeds we go)

And for the record, the 1st amendment includes numerous rights. One of them is the right to free speech, the other is the right to peaceably assemble. Nowhere does the amendment say that we must speak peacefully, only assemble peacefully.

Yelling loudly in protest and being rude is not against the law. Throwing rocks at people and protesting is. But being verbally "un-peaceable" is not illegal.

So the law means what YOU say it means? You get to narrowly define what type of assembly is "peaceable?"
No....Those laws are deliberately written broadly to allow the cop on the scene (not you) to have wide latitude in deciding what he/she thinks is illegal activity.
You get a chance to argue your defense in court, at trial.



I think most people who observe those town hall meeting protests would agree the intention was not to communicate the protester's point but to stop others from being able to communicate theirs.
I would remove such protester from the scene on any one of a number of charges & if I could prove a group had conspired to shout down the other side....I would prosecute for higher crimes.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

OK..Then arrest them for "creating a public nuisance"...."Disorderly conduct"...."Attempting to piss of a police officer"...What the hell difference does it make what you call it?

So for like the 5th time you will cut and run from.


You supported Gates arrest?

 

[Lakryte]

OK..Then arrest them for "creating a public nuisance"...."Disorderly conduct"...."Attempting to piss of a police officer"...What the hell difference does it make what you call it? (of into the weeds we go)

Who are "them"? What difference does it make? Well, for starters they are all separate laws with different definitions...

So the law means what YOU say it means?

Only when what I say it means is what it actually means. Do I have to quote the amendment for you AGAIN?

No....Those laws are deliberately written broadly to allow the cop on the scene (not you) to have wide latitude in deciding what he/she thinks is illegal activity.

You don't need a cop to interpret the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now in the English language, "or" is used to divide two separate ideas in one sentence. For example: You can fight or be peaceful. You can eat, or drink, or violently use the bathroom. "Or" is used so as not to restate the subject. Do you follow so far? Now if we divide a sentence with "or" we can have separate sentences. Let us do this for the first amendment:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Those are the basic rights in the amendment. That is the law. And NOWHERE does the law say that we must speak "peaceably" only assemble peaceably. You can't read it any other way.

I think most people who observe those town hall meeting protests would agree the intention was not to communicate the protester's point but to stop others from being able to communicate theirs.

Off topic. I would appreciate it if you abide by the same warning you keep quoting. And for the record, the majority thinking so does not make it so. (nor is your assumption necessarily correct).

I would remove such protester from the scene on any one of a number of charges & if I could prove a group had conspired to shout down the other side....I would prosecute for higher crimes.

What do you mean by "such" protester? Give me the law that makes "organizing to shout down the other side" illegal. Don't we do that all the time at sports rallies? In high school we would always shout down the freshmen. And we thought about it beforehand. Should that have been illegal?

 

[Devil505]

Who are "them"? What difference does it make? Well, for starters they are all separate laws with different definitions.................................

You vomited allot of words up there! (you feel better now?):devil:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You vomited allot of words up there! (you feel better now?):devil:

Irony? :2wave:

 

[The Mark]

You vomited allot of words up there! (you feel better now?):devil:

So, to be clear. You don't agree with his assessment of the 1st amendment?

As I agree with the majority of what he said, I am interested to see what you might think about his statements.

 

[Lakryte]

You vomited allot of words up there! (you feel better now?)

What I just vomited up was the first amendment. Would you like to actually make an argument or continue on with your personal attacks?

Irony?

No kidding.

 

[American]

Since I & many others feel that the shouting protest at many health care rallies is being orchestrated, & appears designed to prevent the American voter from hearing the other side of the issue, I ask the above poll question.
Whether or not our suspicions (including those of press Sec Gibbs at today's briefing C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics) prove to be true, my poll question remains.

The last option should read: If fake, (operatives proven to be merely "Posing" as concerned citizens while actually being paid money for the purpose of inhibiting free speech) protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.

Do liberals NOT organize their protests? Are we going to see something substantive in this thread? The poll choices are also convoluted.

 

[Devil505]

Do liberals NOT organize their protests? Are we going to see something substantive in this thread? The poll choices are also convoluted.

For the last time:

The problem is not organizing.....The problem is trying to hide the fact that you are organized & acting for others.

DECEPTION------The key to all GOP tactics

The GOP doesn't try to EARN our votes.....They try to trick them out of us....Get It??

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

For the last time:

The problem is not organizing.....The problem is trying to hide the fact that you are organized & acting for others.

DECEPTION------The key to all GOP tactics

The GOP doesn't try to EARN our votes.....They try to trick them out of us....Get It??

You have any proof of this? Why do you have no problems with the left which has been proven to do this with paid activists...



Cut, run, and hide from the Good Reverend as you usually do now! :2wave:

 

[Zyphlin]

So Devil, since you refuse to participate in the other thread...

I take it you also admit then that the Dem's have "Plants" and "Operatives" using "deception" as well and thus are trying to "Trick" us for our votes based on THIS instances which has just as much evidence as anything you all have posted.

Oh wait...let me guess...

This will be "Different"

(of course it will be, the "difference" is in the D)

 

[Zyphlin]

He has no proof, not for what he's claiming Rev.

He finds "proof" that proves **** he's not actually saying and then acts like it somehow proves his original point. Then when he gets called on his dishonesty he back pedals going "no no, its opinion, and you can't ask me to back up my opinion!" and then gets all flustered why everyone but the most mindlessly zombie-like democrat talking points following hyper partisan liberals don't give a **** what his opinion is because its not credible.