This is what comes to my mind ...

[zgoldsmith23]

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

First off, why do you assume he's a "frat boy?" Is he wearing his letters?

Anyway, "content" is quite subjective. For instance, I'd think there's more worthwhile in HIS speech than the silly preacher. Of course, that grants neither of them anything more / less than the other. The guy's speech could be political speech as well as it is just against the preacher's political speech.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

First off, why do you assume he's a "frat boy?" Is he wearing his letters?

If you want to focus on something irrelevant, as to avoid the meat of the discussion, take it somewhere else.

Anyway, "content" is quite subjective.

I agree. But there seems to be a complete absence of message to his speech. It's simply making noise at a high volume in another persons face

For instance, I'd think there's more worthwhile in HIS speech than the silly preacher.

The issue doesn't rest on what you find "worthwhile" but the actual content and message of the speech

Of course, that grants neither of them anything more / less than the other.

Sure it does, the preacher is actually attempting to communicate an idea that has political implications and content. The other guy is yelling. The former is afforded a high degree of protection based on the fact it carries political and social implications, the later is not afforded protection because it's some idiot trying to harass another individual.

This would be true if the guy preaching was an atheist, and the frat boy has a born again christian. Because the concern isn't the actual content, but that there is actual content

The guy's speech could be political speech as well as it is just against the preacher's political speech.

Could be? Could be is not "is". And the fact that you can't articulate it's actual content underlines the issue with it: that it has no content or purpose, other than to harass someone engaging in content based political speech

 

[zgoldsmith23]

If you want to focus on something irrelevant, as to avoid the meat of the discussion, take it somewhere else.

As you can see below, that's not the case that I ignored the meat of the discussion. Now, how about you support that claim, eh?

I agree. But there seems to be a complete absence of message to his speech. It's simply making noise at a high volume in another persons face

The message of his speech is to ignore the preacher. You may not like the message, but that is a message.

The issue doesn't rest on what you find "worthwhile" but the actual content and message of the speech

Same as above. I don't agree with the preacher and just assume he shut up. But he does have a right to speak (as does the guy yelling at him). He doesn't have protection from being criticized or yelled back at, or even told to shut up.

Sure it does, the preacher is actually attempting to communicate an idea that has political implications and content. The other guy is yelling. The former is afforded a high degree of protection based on the fact it carries political and social implications, the later is not afforded protection because it's some idiot trying to harass another individual.

The guy yelling is afforded protection as well as his is also political. It's yelling to ignore the other position.

This would be true if the guy preaching was an atheist, and the frat boy has a born again christian. Because the concern isn't the actual content, but that there is actual content

It's not verbose, but there is content there.

Could be? Could be is not "is". And the fact that you can't articulate it's actual content underlines the issue with it: that it has no content or purpose, other than to harass someone engaging in content based political speech

His message is a counter-position to the preacher. Sorry that you don't know that.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

As you can see below, that's not the case that I ignored the meat of the discussion. Now, how about you support that claim, eh?

The issue of him being a fratboy, or not, has zero relevancy to the point of this discussion. So I see little point in hashing it out

The message of his speech is to ignore the preacher. You may not like the message, but that is a message.

No a message to ignore the preacher would state something like "ignore the preacher" not make inaudible sounds with the intent to drown out the preacher.

Same as above. I don't agree with the preacher and just assume he shut up. But he does have a right to speak (as does the guy yelling at him). He doesn't have protection from being criticized or yelled back at, or even told to shut up.

Again, all speech is not equal. Political speech is afforded a high degree of protection due to content. Making random noises, and disturbing the peace, is not, because it lacks political content

The guy yelling is afforded protection as well as his is also political. It's yelling to ignore the other position.

there is no clear content there and you weren't even aware of the distinction given to political speech until I mentioned it. Prior you claimed he had a right to simply make noise where ever he wanted.

Clearly you're now shifting goal posts

It's not verbose, but there is content there.

He's trying to prevent someone from speaking on political issues publicly. And to facilitate this is making random noises to harass the guy.That is an act devoid on any political content

Tat isn't political content

His message is a counter-position to the preacher. Sorry that you don't know that.

No, a counter position to the preacher would be speaking to the actual words of the preacher. Making random noises does not accomplish this

 

[Henrin]

I'd be interested to see their decibel comparison.

I'm not interested really. You said he was yelling, but speaking into a microphone that is designed to make your voice carry across a wider area is not the same thing as yelling. Was the preacher annoying? Sure, but he wasn't trying to cause anyone any sort of distress or harm by his words. He was just out there speaking his faith to what it appears to be a bunch of people that didn't want to hear him. The punk on the other hand was yelling and he was trying to cause distress by his actions. I'm not saying what the punk did wasn't protected speech, but he was the party in the wrong in that situation.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

The issue of him being a fratboy, or not, has zero relevancy to the point of this discussion. So I see little point in hashing it out

So an empty claim made by you that you're refusing to support. Interesting... :roll:

No a message to ignore the preacher would state something like "ignore the preacher" not make inaudible sounds with the intent to drown out the preacher.

So his method isn't your method. That doesn't invalidate his method.

Again, all speech is not equal. Political speech is afforded a high degree of protection due to content. Making random noises, and disturbing the peace, is not, because it lacks political content

His was political. It may not have been traditional, but it was political.

there is no clear content there and you weren't even aware of the distinction given to political speech until I mentioned it. Prior you claimed he had a right to simply make noise where ever he wanted.

Wherever? Don't think I said that. Support this claim while you're at it.

He's trying to prevent someone from speaking on political issues publicly. And to facilitate this is making random noises to harass the guy.That is an act devoid on any political content

He's not preventing him from speaking. He's not holding his mouth closed. He's exercising the same right as the preacher. He has a right to speak, not to be heard.

Tat isn't political content

Says which law?

No, a counter position to the preacher would be speaking to the actual words of the preacher. Making random noises does not accomplish this

Counter position is a counter position. You may not like how he conveyed it, but that doesn't invalidate his counter position.

It really isn't hard, Chuckles. You may not like how he acted, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I'm not interested really. You said he was yelling, but speaking into a microphone that is designed to make your voice carry across a wider area is not the same thing as yelling. Was the preacher annoying? Sure, but he wasn't trying to cause anyone any sort of distress or harm by his words. He was just out there speaking his faith to what it appears to be a bunch of people that didn't want to hear him. The punk on the other hand was yelling and he was trying to cause distress by his actions. I'm not saying what the punk did wasn't protected speech, but he was the party in the wrong in that situation.

Yelling that is designated to make your voice carry across a wider area is not the same as using a microphone (one is natural and the other isn't). Was the man yelling annoying? Sure, but he wasn't causing distress or harm, either. He was simply out there speaking his idea to what appears to be a preacher that didn't want to hear him. The preacher on the other hand was using a microphone and he was trying to cause distress by his actions. I'm not saying what the preacher did wasn't protected speech, but he was the part in the wrong in that situation.

Flipped roles and it's the exact same.

 

[Henrin]

Yelling that is designated to make your voice carry across a wider area is not the same as using a microphone (one is natural and the other isn't). Was the man yelling annoying? Sure, but he wasn't causing distress or harm, either. He was simply out there speaking his idea to what appears to be a preacher that didn't want to hear him. The preacher on the other hand was using a microphone and he was trying to cause distress by his actions. I'm not saying what the preacher did wasn't protected speech, but he was the part in the wrong in that situation.

Flipped roles and it's the exact same.

:doh Where did you get that stupid argument from? Yelling in someones face in the fashion done by the punk is designed to shout someone down and make them stop talking from feeling powerless and embarrassed. Speaking your views to an audience is designed to get people to hear you. Simply hearing views you don't want to hear is not distressful and if it does in fact cause you distress that is a personal problem that you should work on.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Where did you get that stupid argument from? Yelling in someones face in the fashion done by the punk is designed to shout someone down and make them stop talking from feeling powerless and embarrassed. Speaking your views to an audience is designed to get people to hear you. Simply hearing views you don't want to hear is not distressful and if it does in fact cause you distress that is a personal problem that you should work on.

You can't know his intention; you can speculate (as you did by saying he's trying to make him feel powerless and embarrassed) but that's it. Speaking is designed to get people to hear you, that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. I have no problem hearing views I don't want to hear and it's not distressful in the slightest. I haven't the slightest problem with the preacher exercising his right, just as I don't with the guy yelling.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

So an empty claim made by you that you're refusing to support. Interesting... :roll:

Yes, I am totally uninterested in hashing out the claim the guy is a fratboy, because it does nothing to speak at the larger issue at hand.

So his method isn't your method. That doesn't invalidate his method.

his method has nothing to do with it, and the courts more than recognize symbolic acts. But the key here is that they have to have relevant political content.

Like you can't just crap in the middle of the road, then defend yourself by saying "I was symbolically speaking to a political issue"

His was political. It may not have been traditional, but it was political.

No, yelling in someone's face and trying to drown out what they say is not political speech. There is no content to the message and the intent is to prevent another from speaking.

Wherever? Don't think I said that. Support this claim while you're at it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-topic-discussion/155993-comes-my-mind-10.html#post1061638491

right here you reference "yelling"

He's not preventing him from speaking. He's not holding his mouth closed. He's exercising the same right as the preacher. He has a right to speak, not to be heard

No, the preacher is clearly trying to deliver a message to the public and not simply making noise in an effort to drown out the speech of someone around him. Also your reference to being "heard" misses the point that no one is claiming anyone has to listen to the preacher, but that intentionally trying to drown out the speech of another individual isn't a political message.

Absent the later, people are still free to ignore him

Says which law?

by any rational measure.

Counter position is a counter position.

To express a counter position to your views here I would need to speak to the actual content of your words, not simply delete them in the hopes of preventing other people from reading them. Clearly the later also lacks political content, as well

It really isn't hard, Chuckles. You may not like how he acted, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

of course, he's wrong because there is no content to his message. The entire exercise is designed to limit the political expression of another individual

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

You can't know his intention; you can speculate (as you did by saying he's trying to make him feel powerless and embarrassed) but that's it. Speaking is designed to get people to hear you, that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. I have no problem hearing views I don't want to hear and it's not distressful in the slightest. I haven't the slightest problem with the preacher exercising his right, just as I don't with the guy yelling.

right, we can't clearly define his political message (his intent) because there isn't any. And while the guy simply yelling may not bother you, simply yelling is not protected speech

 

[Henrin]

You can't know his intention; you can speculate (as you did by saying he's trying to make him feel powerless and embarrassed) but that's it.

You know shouting people down in such a fashion is not something this kid just thought up on his own, but has in fact been around a very long time. I think the intent of such speech is well known to just about everyone and there is no need to speculate on it. Just because you don't want to admit what is going on there does not mean I have to play along with your fake ignorance.

Speaking is designed to get people to hear you, that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. I have no problem hearing views I don't want to hear and it's not distressful in the slightest. I haven't the slightest problem with the preacher exercising his right, just as I don't with the guy yelling.

You should at least have a problem with someone trying to harass someone to make them do what they desire them to do and like it or not that is exactly what is going on there.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

right, we can't clearly define his political message (his intent) because there isn't any. And while the guy simply yelling may not bother you, simply yelling is not protected speech

The preacher didn't clearly define his political message, either - did he? Political speech is highly protected, you claimed, no? The yelling is political speech as it is a counter-political speech to the preacher. Again, it's not articulate, but it is a counterpoint.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

You know shouting people down in such a fashion is not something this kid just thought up on his own, but has in fact been around a very long time. I think the intent of such speech is well known to just about everyone and there is no need to speculate on it. Just because you don't want to admit what is going on there does not mean I have to play along with your fake ignorance.

And just because others have used it to shout someone down in the past, doesn't mean that his action was using the same motivation.

You should at least have a problem with someone trying to harass someone to make them do what they desire them to do and like it or not that is exactly what is going on there.

I should? Why should I? No, the guy yelling is not saying the preacher cannot speak. If he were holding his mouth closed, threatening him, etc. that'd be different.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The preacher didn't clearly define his political message, either - did he?

well we can assess that he was speaking english. But beyond that, we can't here what the content is because of the other guy yelling in his face.

That isn't the same as an absence of a political message, that is inherent in yelling in someone's face

Political speech is highly protected, you claimed, no? The yelling is political speech as it is a counter-political speech to the preacher.

No, as I made clear, the issue rests on the content of speech. Simply yelling to drown out another persons speech doesn't have political content. it's sole purpose is to make noise and disrupt the speech of another.

In itself, there is no content

Again, it's not articulate, but it is a counterpoint.

Nope, as explained a counter point would be speaking to the actual content of your words written here, not an attempt to delete them

 

[Henrin]

And just because others have used it to shout someone down in the past, doesn't mean that his action was using the same motivation.

I would love to hear you somehow make sense of that argument. If someone is yelling in your face every time you open your mouth what do you think they are trying to do? Perhaps trying to make you feel powerless and stop talking?? Yeah.

I should? Why should I? No, the guy yelling is not saying the preacher cannot speak. If he were holding his mouth closed, threatening him, etc. that'd be different.

No, trying to cause distress by yelling in someones face every time they open their mouth is a form of harassment.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

well we can assess that he was speaking english. But beyond that, we can't here what the content is because of the other guy yelling in his face.

That isn't the same as an absence of a political message, that is inherent in yelling in someone's face

Speaking English isn't political speech. Sorry. The yelling man's political message is a counter to the preacher's presumed political message (as you yourself claimed you couldn't know). A counter to a political message is, itself, a political message, no?

No, as I made clear, the issue rests on the content of speech. Simply yelling to drown out another persons speech doesn't have political content. it's sole purpose is to make noise and disrupt the speech of another.

In itself, there is no content

There is content. Like I said above, it's a counter to the preacher's political message. That is content. Regarding your second statement, in itself there is no content? What do you mean? Yelling does have purpose. It conveys happiness, fear, pain, or anger.

Nope, as explained a counter point would be speaking to the actual content of your words written here, not an attempt to delete them

Deleting them? Is he a time traveller now? That's silly. He's not removing the words. They are still being spoken, they may not be heard, though. He has a freedom of speech, not an aural right.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I would love to hear you somehow make sense of that argument. If someone is yelling in your face every time you open your mouth what do you think they are trying to do? Perhaps trying to make you feel powerless and stop talking?? Yeah.

They could be. They could also be using it to prevent me from getting hurt, for example. There's more reasons than the one you wish.

No, trying to cause distress by yelling in someones face every time they open their mouth is a form of harassment.

Did he travel with this guy? Follow him around? Doubtful.

 

[Cephus]

Actually no he doesn't. He is actually trying to suppress free speech.
If he wanted to express himself he can do the same as the speaker without trying to silence him.
You have no equal comparison here.

He is in a public place, he has as much right to say what he wants, where he wants, as the idiot with the headset preaching religious BS. Freedom to speak does not guarantee freedom to be heard and if the retard is going to be preaching something that the other individual thinks is harmful, they have every right to drown out the religious crap. If the preacher doesn't like it, he's free to move to another area or to take his speech to private property where he can control what goes on and who has access.

 

[Cephus]

Free speech does not mean trying to silence another from even speaking.

He's not silencing him from even speaking, the religious nutbag is still speaking just fine. If he were stopping him from speaking, he'd have his hand over the guy's mouth.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Speaking English isn't political speech. Sorry.

I'm not sure the point with the act above. But we can clearly see the guy was speaking publicly on some issue of a religious nature. Issues of a religious nature hold inherent public, social, and political interests. The only reason we can't define the details of that message is because the guy yelling in his face.

The yelling man's political message is a counter to the preacher's presumed political message (as you yourself claimed you couldn't know).

1) as pointed out, I don't know because someone is drowning out his actual words by yelling in his face

2) it was already highlighted a counter point would speak to his words, not prevent other people from simply hearing them

Deleting them? Is he a time traveller now? That's silly. He's not removing the words. They are still being spoken, they may not be heard, though. He has a freedom of speech, not an aural right.

deleting is more than an appropriate comparison here, because deleting would prevent people from being exposed to your message, just like drowning out the preacher's speech prevents people from being exposed to his message.

And no, preventing people from being exposed to a form of speech does not carry political content.It's meant to suppress political content

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I'm not sure the point with the act above. But we can clearly see the guy was speaking publicly on some issue of a religious nature. Issues of a religious nature hold inherent public, social, and political interests. The only reason we can't define the details of that message is because the guy yelling in his face.

:lol: Aww. And we can certainly see the guy yelling disagree with his religion preaching which holds inherent public, social and political interests. Thus, it is counter political and, therefore, political speech.

1) as pointed out, I don't know because someone is drowning out his actual words by yelling in his face

2) it was already highlighted a counter point would speak to his words, not prevent other people from simply hearing them

That's not a problem. He has a right to speak, not to be heard. Can you prove otherwise?

deleting is more than an appropriate comparison here, because deleting would prevent people from being exposed to your message, just like drowning out the preacher's speech prevents people from being exposed to his message.

Deleting is removal from existence. The words existed and continued to exist. They weren't heard, that doesn't imply deletion.

And no, preventing people from being exposed to a form of speech does not carry political content.It's meant to suppress political content

For one, suppression is an improper term as it carries the weight of "power." The man yelling is no more powerful than the preacher. Perhaps I could claim the preacher is preventing people from being exposed to a form of speech by the man yelling. You still have yet to show why you feel he has a right to be heard.

 

[Excon]

He is in a public place, he has as much right to say what he wants, where he wants, as the idiot with the headset preaching religious BS. Freedom to speak does not guarantee freedom to be heard and if the retard is going to be preaching something that the other individual thinks is harmful, they have every right to drown out the religious crap. If the preacher doesn't like it, he's free to move to another area or to take his speech to private property where he can control what goes on and who has access.

:naughty
He is attempting to suppress this guys speech. Period.
If he was a Government actor, you know damn well that the Government would be found guilty of trying to suppress his speech by incoherently shouting.
His action and intent doesn't change just because he isn't a Government actor.

He's not silencing him from even speaking, the religious nutbag is still speaking just fine. If he were stopping him from speaking, he'd have his hand over the guy's mouth.

The nut bag is the one trying to silence another's speech by screaming each time the other tries to speak.
And yes that is exactly what he is doing.

 

[Cephus]

He is attempting to suppress this guys speech. Period.

You can keep repeating that all you want, it doesn't make it so. Come on back when you have something worthwhile to say.

 

[rocket88]

And I too get the same type of image when it comes to you. Go figure.

Really, you get me crying in Republican pajamas? Don't read much do you?