• 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!

Drowning people out.

Read post for question.


  • Total voters
    28
The 1st amendment is there to protect US citizens from the GOVERNMENT, not from other private citizens. Unless the counter protesters are being ordered by the government, or paid by the government, or government institution(public college, school, etc.) to shut someone up, then it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
 
Well, for example, in one documented cases caught on video, people who didn't like the message stormed a stage, knocked over the microphone and podium, and caused the event involving the person exercising their First Amendment right to be shut down. That is a clear violation.
Assuming you are correct for the sake of argument, how would you prevent such a thing?
 
Would you consider drowning out people from being able to say something as a possible violation of someone's freedom of speech? For instance there was a time that Christians often drowned out the LGBT community in order to try and get them to shut up and as a way of intimidating them into submission.

No, it is just being rude. And as in your example, when people makes claims that people are drowning them out, it usually just means some one is disagreeing. Hint: 244 million people are not going to be drowned out by tops 15.8 million people, which would be the high end estimate of the number of people in the LGBT community. This thread is a perfect example of people so afraid of differing opinions that they will make up any lie to try and stop those who disagree with them.
 
Abridge > curtail > impose restriction on. The First Amendment protects the abridging of free speech from the government. Ergo, shout downs are protected free speech, so I voted no. The law can't impose restrictions on shout downs ...but I think they can impose restrictions on where it's done.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can. I would just use such examples to marginalize the people who use such tactics.
But aren't they expressing their opinion via a form of speech when they mess up the podium or whatever?
 
But aren't they expressing their opinion via a form of speech when they mess up the podium or whatever?

Well I guess. But denying others of their First Amendment rights should be seen as an example of what such people truly are. That principle is quite common today, with groups seeking to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with their political/agenda demands.
 
Well I guess. But denying others of their First Amendment rights should be seen as an example of what such people truly are. That principle is quite common today, with groups seeking to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with their political/agenda demands.

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

I've never figured out Why they ever got the idea that they're always right in the first place, and everyone should just go along with what they say, no questions asked! If they had a good track record on past decisions, maybe. Since they haven't, but simply expect others to go along like lemmings - and we know what happens to lemmings - it's rather arrogant of them, IMO. :thumbdown:
 
Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

I've never figured out Why they ever got the idea that they're always right in the first place, and everyone should just go along with what they say, no questions asked! If they had a good track record on past decisions, maybe. Since they haven't, but simply expect others to go along like lemmings - and we know what happens to lemmings - it's rather arrogant of them, IMO. :thumbdown:

Hi Polgara :2wave:

Arrogant, yes, no question. The modern tactic of forcing compliance under threat of personal destruction is an ominous sign of the forces who command the effort. As you pointed out, the lemmings who participate have no idea how little room is left before their leaders take them over the cliff.
 
Back
Top Bottom