I'm surprised no conservatives voted that they think it's wrong. I thought they usually didn't like infringements on personal freedom however small and minuscule it may seem or is that just the libertarians?
Imo, throwing the tampons would have been expression of free speech
I haven't voted in this poll. Do I think the state troopers should have made a different decision about the tampons? Yes. Their concern was with projectiles. Women did complain, and the DPS reversed its decision to confiscate tampons.
But the larger issue isn't even the possibility that urine and feces or whatever would be thrown, even though this is assault. It's the attempt to thwart the work of the Texas Senate, the hope of preventing the vote, that's so terribly over the line. The Senate being prevented on June 25th in the last minutes of the regular session from voting created the need for a special session. That is ridiculous.
And also pointless as it turned out.
How is throwing objects at other people "free speech"?
I don't know if it's acceptable or not, but the symbolism of confiscating feminine hygiene products at a senate debate on abortion was an outright media coup for Pro-Choice: the image that conservative men just want to control women's bodies is driven home rather effectively. The fact that the senate didn't seem to really consider the impact this would have only further establishes a general cluelessness on their part.
I applied the "harm principle" that throwing (clean/unused) tampons qualified as a political statement and considered and expression of free speech because no one would be physically hurt.
But throwing urin, feces and used tampons is not free speech because it violates the "harm principle" and presents a public health hazard and would be more along the lines of a hate crime...imo.
Yes, if it conforms to the "harm priniciple." I think pie throwing is okay, too. But not eggs, shoes or bricks because they can hurt people. Not sure about tomatoes, though. Imo, tampons make a great political statement. I would have loved to have seen those legislators get pelted with tampons.So you think it is okay for people to throw things at other people who don't want to be struck with things as long as those things are not "supposed" to be able to cause harm.....???
Yes, if it conforms to the "harm priniciple." I think pie throwing is okay, too. But not eggs, shoes or bricks because they can hurt people. Not sure about tomatoes, though. Imo, tampons make a great political statement. I would have loved to have seen those legislators get pelted with tampons.
What do tampons have to do with abortion anyway? :shrug:
Based on a rumor? No, not acceptable.
What's next, taking away things because 'people might....'?
It's going to take a while, but eventually Texas will be a Blue State.
"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touvh, running out of time, GOP.
You haven't been to an AIRPORT lately, have you.
I got the impression that {in the previous Legislative session} protesters were throwing 'used' tampons/pads.Oh, yes I have.
But I can't say they've taken away person hygiene products. Yet. :wink:
I got the impression that {in the previous Legislative session} protesters were throwing 'used' tampons/pads.
I have no source for that but, I do live in the area and hear/read the rumors.
I haven't voted in this poll. Do I think the state troopers should have made a different decision about the tampons? Yes. Their concern was with projectiles. Women did complain, and the DPS reversed its decision to confiscate tampons.
But the larger issue isn't even the possibility that urine and feces or whatever would be thrown, even though this is assault. It's the attempt to thwart the work of the Texas Senate, the hope of preventing the vote, that's so terribly over the line. The Senate being prevented on June 25th in the last minutes of the regular session from voting created the need for a special session. That is ridiculous.
And also pointless as it turned out.
So you throw a pie and ruin someone's dry cleaning, costing them money and that is supposed to be no harm?
Any object that strikes another person who was not willing to have that object strike them is an assault in my eyes, plain and simple....
I don't give a **** if it doesn't make them bleed, they become a victim and that isn't the type of civil society we live in.
Protesters like to talk about "Civil Disobedience" launching objects at people is not CIVIL no more than a small child's temper tantrum.
Is that what you agree with? Protesters throwing childish temper tantrums?
I don't think you're supposed to like it if you're on the recieving end of the protest. But it's amusing that a Libertarian would be against the first amendment right to free expression.
Freedom of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The beauty of the constitution is in it's simplicity and if it listed every known and unknown medium of free expression then it wouldn't be so simple now would it? So if you're looking for specifics you won't find it but you might find it in precedent, court rulings and writings of the fore father's intent.Its not a first amendment right to throw **** at someone.
If so, please point out to me where in the 1st amendment it says, "The right of the people to throw objects at others with the intent to strike others for the purpose of addressing their greivences will not be infringed"
Thanks in advance.
By the way... nowhere in your link do I see anything about throwing **** at people.
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?