• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protesters Storm Stage at Ted Cruz Rally

What if...? said:
By the state. If I do it I'm rude and trespassing. If my activity may result in violence, and the state has to intervene to prevent it, then the "scheduled" speakers' rights take precedence.

Still can't be charged or sued as an individual for violating another citizens right to speak. The constitution says congress shall make no law. Nothing about the people in that part. And they were always quite clear who they were limiting.
Click to expand...

I would say that if this continues with the same parties organizing and going after the same target, civil harassment and maybe even RICO suit IF things escalate. But harassment? That's almost a given.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I would say that if this continues with the same parties organizing and going after the same target, civil harassment and maybe even RICO suit IF things escalate. But harassment? That's almost a given.
Click to expand...

Not based on an individual violating another individuals rights.

Is it possible for an individual to violate anothers' second amendment rights?

An individual to conduct an illegal search and seizure, or just trespassing and theft?
 
What if...? said:
Not based on an individual violating another individuals rights.

Is it possible for an individual to violate anothers' second amendment rights?

An individual to conduct an illegal search and seizure, or just trespassing and theft?
Click to expand...

Civil code. All prosecution by government is done on behalf of a victim or by the people as a collective for violations against society. A crime in general is a violation of the rights of another. All rights flow out from implications in the Bill of Rights and extensions of common law. Its....more complicated than that but that is the basics of it.

Harassment can be defined as simply as unwanted contact should it be adjudicated that contact is an attempt to violate the rights of another. Politicians don't go after it but they also usually don't get the levels of protest we are seeing this year.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Civil code. All prosecution by government is done on behalf of a victim or by the people as a collective for violations against society. A crime in general is a violation of the rights of another. All rights flow out from implications in the Bill of Rights and extensions of common law. Its....more complicated than that but that is the basics of it.
Click to expand...

Yet there are no statutes, no civil cases involving an individual violating the right to free speech of another. That I can find, anyway.

You can say "re-enslave the blacks" and I can say "STFU". Much louder than you. And unless there's some underlying crime like trespass or inciting, the pro slavery guy can't get the state to make me stop telling him to STFU.

The folks with the horrible abortion pictures at Earth Day can't have the cops come and make me shut down my "fetus burger" stand right next to them. The VENUE can, but the anti-abortion folks can't have the state silence me.
 
What if...? said:
Yet there are no statutes, no civil cases involving an individual violating the right to free speech of another. That I can find, anyway.

You can say "re-enslave the blacks" and I can say "STFU". Much louder than you. And unless there's some underlying crime like trespass or inciting, the pro slavery guy can't get the state to make me stop telling him to STFU.

The folks with the horrible abortion pictures at Earth Day can't have the cops come and make me shut down my "fetus burger" stand right next to them. The VENUE can, but the anti-abortion folks can't have the state silence me.
Click to expand...

Well, its a fairly new, adjudication of harassment and free speech. it has a lot to do with the venue and the amount of contact or number of times attempts are made to shut down the rights of another. Right now, I'm not sure you could find two appellate courts willing to rule one case the same way unless its really egregious or repeated behavior. It just isn't that cut and dried very often.

The Intersection of Free Speech and Harassment Rules | Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice
 
OpportunityCost said:
Cmon, playing a hopeless context game? No, the more synonymous perspective would be if someone from the crowd ran up on stage.
Click to expand...

I'm not playing any game. We're talking about the freedom of speech, and the First Amendment protects some very unpleasant, disgusting ways of expressing political views. If there are any Supreme Court decisions holding that laws may prohibit people from interrupting the speech of political candidates in non-violent ways, please point me to them.
 
matchlight said:
I'm not playing any game. We're talking about the freedom of speech, and the First Amendment protects some very unpleasant, disgusting ways of expressing political views. If there are any Supreme Court decisions holding that laws may prohibit people from interrupting the speech of political candidates in non-violent ways, please point me to them.
Click to expand...

You certainly are. You are shifting the context beyond reasonable. Comparison of cross talk with an attempt to take over the conversation by force are not the same. Method, intent and goals are not even remotely close. So your counter argument is a contextual game because it is not realistic.

See also, harassment, trespass, disturbing the peace, intent to incite, and possibly assault. It all depends on what happens.
 
What if...? said:
So your side wants to LEGISLATE your preferred country, using government force to make others live how you want them to and decry those who actually personally put their words into action, accepting responsibility for those actions?

Who is anti-freedom again?
Click to expand...

I don't know what "your side" means, but I speak for myself. I don't know, either, how anyone would legislate a country. Legislators make laws. The rest of your maundering is just as incoherent. What does any of it have to do with leftist dimwits interrupting a rally by Sen. Cruz?
 
matchlight said:
I don't know what "your side" means, but I speak for myself. I don't know, either, how anyone would legislate a country. Legislators make laws. The rest of your maundering is just as incoherent. What does any of it have to do with leftist dimwits interrupting a rally by Sen. Cruz?
Click to expand...

Yes, laws that make the other people in the country live as SOME see fit.

Curtailing everyone else's freedom to live as THEY sees fit.

So if you are speaking in support of curtailing the rights of others to live as they choose, that "free speech" is anti-freedom. Shouting them down is patriotic, from that perspective.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You certainly are. You are shifting the context beyond reasonable. Comparison of cross talk with an attempt to take over the conversation by force are not the same. Method, intent and goals are not even remotely close. So your counter argument is a contextual game because it is not realistic.

See also, harassment, trespass, disturbing the peace, intent to incite, and possibly assault. It all depends on what happens.
Click to expand...

You seem to be argumentative. I'm not making any argument about what happened in this incident. I don't know the details and am not interested enough to take the time to investigate them. If someone committed a crime, then let the local authorities prosecute him for it. I am only trying to point out that the First Amendment protects even very insulting and aggressive speech that could provoke violence.

Anyone who wants to see how strongly the Supreme Court has protected this kind of speech might want to look, for starters, at Brandenburg v. Ohio (holding statute under which Klan leader punished for merely advocating violence invalid, because his advocacy was neither directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, nor likely to incite or produce it); Skokie case (First Amendment protected Nazi group's right to parade in uniform through town they purposely chose because it was populated mostly by Jewish concentration camp survivors); Cohen v. California (holding that state could not punish man for wearing T-shirt reading "F*** the Draft" in court); Gooding v. Wilson (holding that "fighting words" statute violated freedom of speech by punishing person for saying to police officer, "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you"); and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (holding ordinance under which man was punished for burning cross in black family's yard invalid, because it punished only those fighting words which provoked violence on the basis of race, religion, or gender).
 
matchlight said:
You seem to be argumentative. I'm not making any argument about what happened in this incident. I don't know the details and am not interested enough to take the time to investigate them. If someone committed a crime, then let the local authorities prosecute him for it. I am only trying to point out that the First Amendment protects even very insulting and aggressive speech that could provoke violence.

Anyone who wants to see how strongly the Supreme Court has protected this kind of speech might want to look, for starters, at Brandenburg v. Ohio (holding statute under which Klan leader punished for merely advocating violence invalid, because his advocacy was neither directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, nor likely to incite or produce it); Skokie case (First Amendment protected Nazi group's right to parade in uniform through town they purposely chose because it was populated mostly by Jewish concentration camp survivors); Cohen v. California (holding that state could not punish man for wearing T-shirt reading "F*** the Draft" in court); Gooding v. Wilson (holding that "fighting words" statute violated freedom of speech by punishing person for saying to police officer, "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you"); and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (holding ordinance under which man was punished for burning cross in black family's yard invalid, because it punished only those fighting words which provoked violence on the basis of race, religion, or gender).
Click to expand...

All of which ignores the actions taken to claim a platform to express yourself which belongs to someone else. Venue, intent, location, action stemming not from the speech but the actions taken to gain a platform not earned, paid for, or invited.

Its not just about speech.
 
Moot said:
He said.... "The only people who can infringe on free speech is the government."

I said..."The first amendment is a restriction on government...not the people."
Click to expand...

If I put those two together, we get an accurate statement of the law: The only people who can infringe on free speech is the government (his) because The first amendment is a restriction on government...not the people (yours).


If you start talking and I knock you out with a brick, I have certainly stopped you from speaking, but I have not infringed your right to free speech because I am not a government actor. I'm just some nutter with a brick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom