• 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
No, it wouldn't. It would be assault.

Not if the student didn't touch the person. I'm thinking of a couple of instances here on college campuses when students rushed the stage and knock over the podium with the microphone attached to it. The speaker wasn't touched.

I guess the students were demonstrating what they had been taught so far about the 1st Amendment.
 
Not if the student didn't touch the person. I'm thinking of a couple of instances here on college campuses when students rushed the stage and knock over the podium with the microphone attached to it. The speaker wasn't touched.

I guess the students were demonstrating what they had been taught so far about the 1st Amendment.

If you snatch something forcefully from someone, it's assault.
 
By the way, would it be bad form to bomb this thread with dozens of short, one-line responses?

:mrgreen:
 
I guess to whomever owned the facility/podium/microphone. What would it be to the person who wasn't allowed to speak?

Shaking head here. It would be rude. It would be interference. It is NOT a civil rights violation.
 
Shaking head here. It would be rude. It would be interference. It is NOT a civil rights violation.

Interesting. Violating someone's First Amendment rights carries no repercussions. I don't know about that.
 
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.

i could invent one where it would but its not a yes/no answer. . .

its circumstantial . . .
who is doing the drowning out
who is being drowned out
what form does the drowning out take
where does the drowning out take place
and what is exactly being drowned out

they all matter
 
It depends on how. One position being more popular or more loudly advocated is just having more speech. That's great. But when a few powerful or wealthy people silence everyone else with that power, that's not more speech. That's a little bit of speech being amplified to an astounding volume. More voices added to the discussion are better, and yes, some voices are going to be lonesome. That's what happens when you share space with other people.
 
It'd be hilarious to see gay bashers shoved into the closet, as they figure out no one will listen to or associate with them, much as they've done to lgbt for the longest time.
 
Interesting. Violating someone's First Amendment rights carries no repercussions. I don't know about that.
It is impossible for me or any other individual to violate the right to freedom of speech for you or anyone else.

I could beat you unconscious with my fists or an object, but that's assault/battery, or something...not a free speech violation.
I could tie you up and gag you, but that's kidnapping or restraint without consent, or something....not a free speech violation.
I could kill you, but that's murder or manslaughter or something...not a free speech violation.

I could yell loudly, possibly with artificial aids (megaphone, microphone, speakers, or something like that), so as to prevent your speech from being heard...but you are still free to speak, and anyone near enough can hear you...not a free speech violation.


Effectively, no matter what I do, I cannot prevent you from speaking without violating some law. Only the government can beat, stun, gas, imprison, or kill you without it being illegal.

And there's no way you can be stopped from speaking without your consent unless one of those methods is used.
 
No, freedom of speech is the freedom from governmental interference with speech. Private individuals shutting somebody down has nothing to do with freedom of speech. In fact, drowning people out is speech.
 
No.

Apart from which the example cited is in dire need of being evidenced. Where did that happen and when? Link?
 
If there is no parliamentary procedure in place, may the loudest accrue the spoils.

Unless they use cans of air horn. Then they must be beaten, bruised, and bloodied.
 
Here's a great example of what we're talking about:

Weenies burn flag to protest cops, get attacked by bikers, need cops to save their asses | New York Post

A group of flag-burning anti-NYPD protesters needed New York’s Finest to save their skin from a gang of angry bikers who tried to pummel them in a Brooklyn park for setting Old Glory ablaze Wednesday.

If the flag burners wanted their right to burn an American Flag to be protected they should have done it on private property, not a public space.
 
This is neither a good nor a bad thing, necessarily, but technically drowning someone out is freedom of speech.
It is, but the people doing the drowning out shouldn't be hypocrites by claiming to support the free expression of ideas. If one supports the free expression of ideas, that means they shut up and let other ideas be heard as well.

If YOUR* point of view is solid, it will stand on it's own and doesn't need to suppress the other point of view.

*- Generic "your".
 
It depends on how. One position being more popular or more loudly advocated is just having more speech. That's great. But when a few powerful or wealthy people silence everyone else with that power, that's not more speech. That's a little bit of speech being amplified to an astounding volume. More voices added to the discussion are better, and yes, some voices are going to be lonesome. That's what happens when you share space with other people.
In other words, only the wealthy and powerful can be guilty of it, right?
 
It is impossible for me or any other individual to violate the right to freedom of speech for you or anyone else.

I could beat you unconscious with my fists or an object, but that's assault/battery, or something...not a free speech violation.
I could tie you up and gag you, but that's kidnapping or restraint without consent, or something....not a free speech violation.
I could kill you, but that's murder or manslaughter or something...not a free speech violation.

I could yell loudly, possibly with artificial aids (megaphone, microphone, speakers, or something like that), so as to prevent your speech from being heard...but you are still free to speak, and anyone near enough can hear you...not a free speech violation.


Effectively, no matter what I do, I cannot prevent you from speaking without violating some law. Only the government can beat, stun, gas, imprison, or kill you without it being illegal.

And there's no way you can be stopped from speaking without your consent unless one of those methods is used.

Untrue. But thanks for the comments.

Destroying the means for people to hear what a person is saying is of course a violation of their First Amendment rights.
 
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.

The reverse also happens. I had a person call me a bigot because I had an opinion that it was another person's right to have an opinion. I did not agree with the other person's opinion but I respected their right to have one, therefore I was a bigot. The person that went into the rage and started throwing the "bigot" name around was arguing for the LGBT point of view. Anyone that disagreed with the person arguing for SSM was a bigot. I stop conversing when the name calling starts. It was pretty sad.
 
I've seen more ridiculous accusations of "suppression of free speech" than I can count. There was a thread here some months ago in which the members of a black congregation decided that they wouldn't allow gay marriages in their church. I called them assholes for this, and as a result I was accused by multiple members of suppressing the free speech of the church's members.

Legally, "Freedom of Speech" has a specific meaning, and it is not "My opinion must reign supreme over yours."
 
Untrue. But thanks for the comments.

Destroying the means for people to hear what a person is saying is of course a violation of their First Amendment rights.
How so?
 

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom