This is what comes to my mind ...

[Wiseone]

:doh
Now you are going in a different direction than when you had said that I said "all". Which is clear I didn't say.

My opinion is what it is. It holds true for me. As I said, that may be because of the liberals and Progressives I interact with, but it still holds true.

So either get me interacting with some that don't act in such a way in order to change my mind. Or remain wrong and push on, as it still hold true.

I think that's something you should do for yourself, you know get out there and explore and challenge your own prejudices and opinions, instead of kicking back, acting smug, and being wholly self righteous.

 

[Excon]

Oh, but they are. Both are expressing themselves. The preacher is trying to tell people how they are wrong and the kid is telling the preacher how he is wrong. Their actions are exactly the same.

:lamo:doh:lamo
Wrong!
They are not the same. One is trying to exercise his right to free speech and the other is acting as a turd and trying to suppress it.

False. He is expressing himself to the equal volume the preacher is expressing himself. It's right there in the video.

:doh
Wrong!
They are not the same. One is trying to exercise his right to free speech and the other is acting as a turd and trying to suppress it.

Unequivocally false,

Unequivocally true. He is trying to suppress the others speech.

 

[Excon]

I think that's something you should do for yourself, you know get out there and explore and challenge your own prejudices and opinions, instead of kicking back, acting smug, and being wholly self righteous.

I already do. And those liberal's and Progressives that I come into contact act in such a fashion. That is why such comes to my mind when I hear those terms. iLOL

 

[Slyfox696]

:lamo:doh:lamo
Wrong!
They are not the same. One is trying to exercise his right to free speech and the other is acting as a turd and trying to suppress it.


:doh
Wrong!
They are not the same. One is trying to exercise his right to free speech and the other is acting as a turd and trying to suppress it.

Unequivocally true. He is trying to suppress the others speech.

You can say it all you want, it won't make it true. At the end of the day, both men were expressing themselves. Just because you don't like how the second person did it, does not mean he is preventing anyone else from expressing theirs, as evidenced by the fact the preacher was still talking.

 

[Excon]

You can say it all you want, it won't make it true. At the end of the day, both men were expressing themselves. Just because you don't like how the second person did it, does not mean he is preventing anyone else from expressing theirs, as evidenced by the fact the preacher was still talking.

And you saying so doesn't make it true.
We can see he is trying to suppress the others guy speech.
So you and your position are wrong and you know it.

 

[Slyfox696]

And you saying so doesn't make it true.
We can see he is trying to suppress the others guy speech.
So you and your position are wrong and you know it.

Really? What action is he taking which suppresses the other person speaking? Is the preacher not still being able to talk? Please direct me to the moment when the preacher was rendered physically incapable of talking by the second person.
.

 

[Excon]

Really? What action is he taking which suppresses the other person speaking? Is the preacher not still being able to talk? Please direct me to the moment when the preacher was rendered physically incapable of talking by the second person.

Why are you playing dumb?
You know darn well that he was attempting to suppress the other guys speech.
Preventing a person's speech from reaching the intended audience is suppression.
Stop with your nonsense.

 

[Slyfox696]

Why are you playing dumb?
You know darn well that he was attempting to suppress the other guys speech.
Preventing a person's speech from reaching the intended audience is suppression.
Stop with your nonsense.

You didn't answer my question. Please answer my question. I'll post it again for you.

What action is he taking which suppresses the other person speaking? Is the preacher not still being able to talk? Please direct me to the moment when the preacher was rendered physically incapable of talking by the second person.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I believe the view is I'm annoying asshole. All the guy is doing is trying to shout him down by making that annoying immature sound. There is nothing else going on there. If I was the preacher I would of pounded on that kids face.

this is actually a pretty valid criticism, considering the courts have always focused on "political" speech. Speech that actually speaks to some issue of importance, not mere profanity, shouting, etc

 

[Excon]

You didn't answer my question. Please answer my question. I'll post it again for you.

And again. Try to understand that it is an answer to the crap you are posting.
Because it shows your question to be silly.

Why are you playing dumb?
You know darn well that he was attempting to suppress the other guys speech.
Preventing a person's speech from reaching the intended audience is suppression.
Stop with your nonsense.​

 

[Slyfox696]

And again. Try to understand that it is an answer to the crap you are posting.

It's not. You have yet to show a SINGLE thing which has prevented the preacher from speaking. It's called "freedom of speech", not "freedom to be listened to". The younger man did NOTHING to prevent the preacher from speaking. And you know it, which is why you keep posting the same trite answer over and over.

I also noticed how you ignored my question earlier about the preacher speaking so loudly as to drown out the conversations of those nearby. I don't blame you for that, it would have only further shown the silliness of your position. Either way, you are completely wrong, and that's before the fact that freedom of speech is protected by the 1st Amendment as a protection from government and not individual citizens.

It's okay to admit you're wrong. Just step up, be mature and admit what everyone already knows. You're wrong.


EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I could hear the preacher's message in the video, so it's very clear the preacher wasn't drowned out and his message was reaching the audience. So that would be a third way in which you are wrong.

 

[Excon]

It's not. You have yet to show a SINGLE thing which has prevented the preacher from speaking. It's called "freedom of speech", not "freedom to be listened to". The younger man did NOTHING to prevent the preacher from speaking. And you know it, which is why you keep posting the same trite answer over and over.

I also noticed how you ignored my question earlier about the preacher speaking so loudly as to drown out the conversations of those nearby. I don't blame you for that, it would have only further shown the silliness of your position. Either way, you are completely wrong, and that's before the fact that freedom of speech is protected by the 1st Amendment as a protection from government and not individual citizens.

It's okay to admit you're wrong. Just step up, be mature and admit what everyone already knows. You're wrong.


EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I could hear the preacher's message in the video, so it's very clear the preacher wasn't drowned out and his message was reaching the audience. So that would be a third way in which you are wrong.

Why are you playing dumb?
You know darn well that he was attempting to suppress the other guys speech.

Preventing a person's speech from reaching the intended audience is suppression.

Stop with your nonsense.

 

[Slyfox696]

You know darn well that he was attempting to suppress the other guys speech.

He was exercising his own right to express himself.

Preventing a person's speech from reaching the intended audience is suppression.

A) No it is not. B) It is irrelevant because the preacher's message still reached the audience.

Throw in the fact you cannot tell someone they are not allowed to express themselves (which makes you the speech suppressor, by the way) and you're wrong in three different ways.

By the way, are you just as enraged with the preacher suppressing the speech of those conversationalists in the area? You keep dodging that question.

 

[Excon]

He was exercising his own right to express himself.

A) No it is not. B) It is irrelevant because the preacher's message still reached the audience.

Throw in the fact you cannot tell someone they are not allowed to express themselves (which makes you the speech suppressor, by the way) and you're wrong in three different ways.

By the way, are you just as enraged with the preacher suppressing the speech of those conversationalists in the area? You keep dodging that question.

Still with the silliness I see.
He was trying to suppress the speech he did not like.
I am not wrong on that.
It is evident in the video that that is what he was trying to do.
And no his message was not making it out. You head mere snippets showing that his suppression was working.
Stop being absurd.

And his right to expression does not trump the other guy's right to express himself. That is what you are not getting. He was trying to do just that.
It is not like he set up his own area and the preacher approached him. He approached the preacher and screamed at the top of his lungs every time the preacher was trying to exercise his rights.
That is called suppression.
Stop being absurd.
It is clear as day what he was trying to do.

 

[Slyfox696]

He was trying to suppress the speech he did not like.

:lamo

And...I'll take that as your concession. The second man was clearly expressing himself too, the preacher was intruding upon the conversations of every one else AND his words were still coming through to the intended audience. We'll just mark this up as one big fail for your thread. No harm done, I do appreciate the fact even you now seem to understand you're backing a lost cause. Have a good night.

 

[Excon]

:lamo

And...I'll take that as your concession. The second man was clearly expressing himself too, the preacher was intruding upon the conversations of every one else AND his words were still coming through to the intended audience. We'll just mark this up as one big fail for your thread. No harm done, I do appreciate the fact even you now seem to understand you're backing a lost cause. Have a good night.

There has been no concession.
You are wrong and fail to admit it.
There is no question as to what the guy was doing. He was trying to suppress the other guys speech.

 

[NoC_T]

You all forget.

There can be only one.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

He isn't expressing any view. He is just trying to be a douchebag child that needs a lesson in civility.

Civility is overrated. He is expressing his view that the preacher can yell, but so can he.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

What view would that be?
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh is not a view by any definition.

The view that he can yell at the preacher.

 

[Somerville]

I believe the view is I'm annoying asshole. All the guy is doing is trying to shout him down by making that annoying immature sound. There is nothing else going on there. If I was the preacher I would of pounded on that kids face.

then you would have been arrested for assault -- Nice!

 

[Henrin]

Civility is overrated. He is expressing his view that the preacher can yell, but so can he.

Except the preacher is not yelling, but speaking in a microphone.

 

[Henrin]

then you would have been arrested for assault -- Nice!

Sometimes it's justified and the punishment is worth it.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

this is actually a pretty valid criticism, considering the courts have always focused on "political" speech. Speech that actually speaks to some issue of importance, not mere profanity, shouting, etc

Are you people really not aware of the tier system to how the courts approach speech? There is no political content to what the guy i s saying and there seems a complete absence of a message . So it amounts to little more than a disturbance of the peace and harassment.

The courts do not really afford much protection to such

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Except the preacher is not yelling, but speaking in a microphone.

I'd be interested to see their decibel comparison.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I'd be interested to see their decibel comparison.

again, the courts have considered content in regards to free speech cases for a very long time, with political speech being afforded the most protection. There is absolutely no content to the frat boys speech. it's just noise, made with the intent to harass another individual.

Such speech is afforded little protection and rightly so