• 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!

John Bush Arrested For Protesting Outside Free Speech Zone At U.T. Austin

If you really want to boil it down, we only need one right: to do whatever you please.

Um no because if we did whatever we please it wouldn't be good for other people.

The converse of that is that we only need one law: you must accept any and all consequences for your actions.

The two things would be a contradiction in terms.
 
ummm...thats two laws...(well..three actually)...

Ones a law, ones a right, and ones just a basic code determining penalties/punishments for violating that one law which would form naturally over time in the private arbitration courts.

and all of that presupposes that everyone is willing to follow those very basic and simple laws. How you seein that working out?

Pretty well actually, that's what the private security firms are for.

and someone 'owns' you?

Yes. Today every man and woman on planet earth is a slave of the state.

Who 'owns' public land?

It should be the public but it is in fact the state.

And what IS public land after all?

Today it is state owned land rather than community owned land.
 
What people are not understanding is that 'Free Speech Zones' are a compromise. Private and public entities have to be able to conduct their daily business in a reasonable and safe manner. It's a very reasonable compromise, allowing those who wish to exercise their right to free assemble a place to do it without trampling the rights of others.
 
It doesn't matter what he is. As long as tax dollars are partially funding the school, it falls under the protection of the Constitution and anyone can go on campus as long as they are not threatening the safety of the people there.

Not true. Public universities can and do regulate access to the campus and campus facilities. Just because something receives public funds doesn't mean that there is universal access. Imagine saying this about a military base. Hey officer, this is publicly funded... I have a right to protest against the behavior of your troops in Iraq... I wonder how far you would get with that?
 
I've never heard of trespassing on public property :^/

EXAMPLE 1:
If you walk onto PUBLIC SCHOOL property during school hours and you don't have a student enrolled there and you're not a teacher.... You are trespassing.


EXAMPLE 2:
the sing reads: 'Beach Closes at Dusk' and you're there at 9:30pm -- you are trespassing.

EXAMPLE 3:
The police ask you to leave city hall because you were causing a disturbance. You refuse. You are trespassing.

EXAMPLE 4:
Where you're asked to leave (with a valid reason) any public space and refuse -- you are trespassing.

Now, you can say you've heard of 'trespassing on public property'
 
Not true. Public universities can and do regulate access to the campus and campus facilities. Just because something receives public funds doesn't mean that there is universal access. Imagine saying this about a military base. Hey officer, this is publicly funded... I have a right to protest against the behavior of your troops in Iraq... I wonder how far you would get with that?

A millitary base has a legitimate national security concern.
 
EXAMPLE 1:
If you walk onto PUBLIC SCHOOL property during school hours and you don't have a student enrolled there and you're not a teacher.... You are trespassing.


EXAMPLE 2:
the sing reads: 'Beach Closes at Dusk' and you're there at 9:30pm -- you are trespassing.

EXAMPLE 3:
The police ask you to leave city hall because you were causing a disturbance. You refuse. You are trespassing.

EXAMPLE 4:
Where you're asked to leave (with a valid reason) any public space and refuse -- you are trespassing.

Now, you can say you've heard of 'trespassing on public property'

unless dusk is after 9:30... :)

Seriously, all good examples. Citizens do not have an absolute right to access government-owned property.
 
I'm trying to get a handle on which limitation on free speech you think are examples of SCOTUS overreaching...

Want to answer?

I didn't specify free speech, I said the constitution in general. You know damn well suggesting that someone supports child pornography is insulting and offensive. I won't respond to that type of baiting.
 
unless dusk is after 9:30... :)

Seriously, all good examples. Citizens do not have an absolute right to access government-owned property.

When there is a safety concern for others (thereby infringing on their right to life). The only time your rights should be infringed upon is when you are infringing on another's. aA group of 20-30 people protesting on a public university does not infringe on other's rights. These people should be protected by the constitution.

Walking into a high school when no one knows who you are is a safety risk for the students. You have no reason to be there, and are significantly more likely to cause harm.

Being kicked off of a public beach at dusk is arguable. I assume the law is there to protect your own safety. I am staunchly against this. An individual cannot infringe on their own rights--it's not possible. This is the reason I would NEVER agree to this law or similar laws designed to protect your own safety (seatbelt laws, etc.)

If you are causing a disturbance in city hall you may be infringing on the due process of the law and therefor the rights of the people to create law protecting their rights. This is different as well.

A military base is a safety concern. You are infringing on the rights of U.S. citizens by learning sensitive material which you could distribute causing loss of innocent life.

Sure they may be public property, but I never argued you could infringe on another's rights on public property, something John Bush, no matter how big of an asshole he was, wasn't doing when he was removed.

If nothing else, this shows how our rights are being stripped away, something John Locke argued would happen under a government.
 
The right of a student to cross campus without having to wade through some unruly mob trumps your right to just start a rally on private property anytime you want.

That right does not exist. What does exist is the right to association, assembly, and protest.
 
You mean like child porn?

Harms children therefor it's a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Or imminent lawless action?

What like pre-crime?

Or libel/slander?

Defamation?

Damaging a persons reputation can cause harm to that persons financial concerns, if they can prove damages then it is a violation of the non-aggression principle.

The Miller Test?

Anti-obscenity legilslation is ridiculous.
 
The funny or sad thing about "free speech zones" is that a lot of colleges are adopting the idea for on campus speech.

Messed up world we have evolved into.

Not evolved into, more like regulated ourselves into.
 
When there is a safety concern for others (thereby infringing on their right to life). The only time your rights should be infringed upon is when you are infringing on another's. aA group of 20-30 people protesting on a public university does not infringe on other's rights. These people should be protected by the constitution.

Hell yes it does -- you're taking the whole thing out of context and painting a rosy picture.

If I'm sitting in a lecture hall on a hot day and I can hear a bunch of meatheads outside, screaming about dolphins or some country I've never heard of, my friggin' rights are being violated. Or if I have to wade through a crowd of yahoos dressed like dead babies...

The university has to be able to conduct business in a reasonable manner. Free speech zone. Follow the rules or get off campus.
 
Hell yes it does -- you're taking the whole thing out of context and painting a rosy picture.

If I'm sitting in a lecture hall on a hot day and I can hear a bunch of meatheads outside, screaming about dolphins or some country I've never heard of, my friggin' rights are being violated. Or if I have to wade through a crowd of yahoos dressed like dead babies...

The university has to be able to conduct business in a reasonable manner. Free speech zone. Follow the rules or get off campus.

Let me guess, you didn't actually watch the video? The people protesting weren't clogging walkways and were not that loud. There was not need to wade through a crowd and there were no lecture halls in the immediate vicinity... oops, guess YOU took it out of context.
 
Let me guess, you didn't actually watch the video? The people protesting weren't clogging walkways and were not that loud. There was not need to wade through a crowd and there were no lecture halls in the immediate vicinity... oops, guess YOU took it out of context.

Heh, I see you've met hazlnut...
 
Let me guess, you didn't actually watch the video? The people protesting weren't clogging walkways and were not that loud. There was not need to wade through a crowd and there were no lecture halls in the immediate vicinity... oops, guess YOU took it out of context.

Im really done with this thread...but the video posted here is the one taken out of context. The actual video of the event was much longer. Jebbie didnt retreat to that nice quiet area til after the police responded. Prior to that the group was in the sidewalk confronting people who left a speech given I believe by Pres Obama.
 
Im really done with this thread...but the video posted here is the one taken out of context. The actual video of the event was much longer. Jebbie didnt retreat to that nice quiet area til after the police responded. Prior to that the group was in the sidewalk confronting people who left a speech given I believe by Pres Obama.

Alright nice chatting. People were coming up to him, not the other way around. He was walking up and down the sidewalk.
 
Back
Top Bottom