- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 25,116
- Reaction score
- 7,658
- Location
- Theoretical Physics Lab
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I think I don't want to meet the woman who uses CLIF bars as pads.
So, the story is going around, you probably have heard about it. Big abortion debate/vote in Texas yesterday, and on fears that some protesters might throw them into the assembly, tampons and pads where being confiscated before people could enter the viewing area.
View attachment 67150283
Supposedly the Texas legislature heard from somewhere that they might be possibly used to disrupt the proceedings. So my question is, do you find this action justifiable?
Guns are okay, but tampons aren't....interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/guns-get-a-pass-at-texas-capitol.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Imo, throwing the tampons would have been expression of free speech and the only way I would object is if the tampons had been used. I'm glad the optics of conservative men armed to the hilt confiscating tampons from unarmed women went viral. I don't think it will be forgotten in 2014.
Thats the thing about freedom and/or civil disobedience is that it doesn't require permission.That's why your opinion wouldn't matter in the real world. They rightly took away those that screamed and made a scene during the session, and they would have rightly arrested those who would throw the objects on the floor.
Order must be secured.
Thats the thing about freedom and/or civil disobedience is that it doesn't require permission.
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.
The legislative floor isn't holy or sacrosanct....they could be standing in a barn for all that matters.
No, throwing stuff at others isn't a First Amendment right. And the subject line of this thread is deceptive--it suggests that what this was about was feminine hygiene products when it wasn't. It was about the state police following a tip and searching protesters' bags for anything that could be used as a projectile.
I don't the DPS was thinking about what those products are used for; they were focused on preventing the senators or others from being assaulted. When women complained to Dem leader Kirk Watson and he then complained to the DPS, it reversed its decision. Oddly, this seems to be forgotten in the fauxrage over "tampon-gate."
Where they do the business, yes it is. If you don't think so, I would like to see you try it. See what happens. I bet you are escorted out at the very least.
The state troopers were there at the authorization of the Texas Senate for the express purpose of enforcing the Senate Rules of Conduct.
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.
Except this was an order rescinded upon complaint and miscommunication. The demand to remove all tampons could still be considered poor, whilst the mechanism to enforce the demands were still justified.
So, the story is going around, you probably have heard about it. Big abortion debate/vote in Texas yesterday, and on fears that some protesters might throw them into the assembly, tampons and pads where being confiscated before people could enter the viewing area.
View attachment 67150283
Supposedly the Texas legislature heard from somewhere that they might be possibly used to disrupt the proceedings. So my question is, do you find this action justifiable?
I think they pretty much confiscated everything that could be thrown though.
Someone just happened to take a picture of the tampon.
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here.
But I do think that when it was pointed out to the DPS that some of the women needed these products, the reversal was accommodating.
What I think is stunning is the silly focus on the damned tampons and the sloganeering about it. The issue was the intent of some of the protesters to create mayhem and to assault their elected reps in the hope of once again preventing a vote. That's the outrage, and it should be non-partisan.
Doesn't matter what the issue is or who's side of what you're on: We don't actively try to prevent our representatives from doing their sworn duty.
The lesson is that PR is important.
Probably not in this case.
They collected what they could to avoid things being thrown. If you're willing to ignore that and instead choose to believe they were only collecting tampons because evil men want to enslave women and their bodies or something equally ridiculous than it probably doesn't matter what policy they had in place. This topic is more of an issue of partisan hackery than anything else.
Considering that a **** storm ensued then to say that pr doesn't matter is demonstrably wrong.
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)
Considering that a **** storm ensued then to say that pr doesn't matter is demonstrably wrong.
Thats the thing about freedom and/or civil disobedience is that it doesn't require permission.
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.
NTL, I'd love to see some of those conservative bullies say they were assaulted by a tampon. lol
The legislative floor isn't holy or sacrosanct....they could be standing in a barn for all that matters.
but Eltife said that action occurred after officers stopped a woman with a cache of “about 75″ feminine hygiene products attempting to enter the Senate Gallery.
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?