• 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

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
It's not a cut and dried issue.

If the discussion is happening in the public realm (ie. on a street corner) then they can try to drown each other out to their hearts content. However, in a private forum (ie. in the middle of a church service) then the property rights of the facility owners come into play even if the discussion is advertised as being open to the public.
 
This is neither a good nor a bad thing, necessarily, but technically drowning someone out is freedom of speech.
 
It might be rude and even wrong, given the circumstances, but I believe only the government can violate someone's freedom of speech.
 
No. One group being louder than another group is not a violation of freedom of speech.
 
Drowning people out is an exercise in free speech. While I think it is abusive of that protection, preventing it by law would be a clear violation of the right to free speech you think you are protecting.
 
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.

Not in law.

In common practice however, it is employed in various ways, from Hillary Clinton's supporters trying to silence criticism, constant belaboring that something is "old news" is a form of it, attacking the individual is another.

Having said that, there is a right for anyone in the audience to say "let him speak", and if in the majority silence the hecklers.

Other than that you have democracy, defined at one time as "anarchy".
 
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'd appreciate it if you'd cite at least one or two instances of this actually happening, preferably within the past ten years for the sake of relevance, because it is news to me.


Not that I have ever spent much time hanging around protests or marches, not my scene.
 
Last edited:
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, I don't see that as a violation. Eliminating them from making a speech another group opposes certainly is.

For example, students storming a stage and grabbing the microphone of someone giving a speech in opposition to illegal immigration. That would be a clear violation.
 
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.

Wrong. Not only wrong, but dead wrong. Wrong as in "1+1=river".
 
Wrong. Not only wrong, but dead wrong. Wrong as in "1+1=river".

You have to understand that when the discussion turns to "gay rights" the terms "disagree" and "drown out" become equivalent.
 
No but, when it happens, it sure pisses people off. Everyone want's their two cents to be heard.
 
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 only entity that can violate your right to free speech is the government. If I'm shouting you down? I'm exercising MY right to free speech.
 
I've only actually spent a significant amount of time around a protest march/meeting on ONE occasion.

That was at the Mall in D.C., during a war-protester march and a veteran's Gathering of Eagles counter-protest, where I was an Event Marshal and tasked with trying to keep the peace in coordination with the DC Park Police (a very professional organization that earned my deepest respect that day, btw).

It was quite an education.

On both sides, there were those who conducted themselves with dignity and restraint, and those who seemed flat damn determined to provoke someone into violence with extreme verbage and actions. Both sides seemed determined to drown each other out much of the time. There were an estimated 30,000 present, and it was a chaotic madhouse.

This caused me to conclude that protests and counter-protests are NOT places where one may expect polite and civil debate, or even much reasonable behavior, out of either side. They seem to feed off each other and get more extreme as the clash goes on.

To get to my point... where there have been instances of pro and anti SSM protests/counterprotests, I've no doubt there were uncivil acts on both sides, perhaps including people trying to drown each other out.

However I would not attribute such behavior as a general norm for either side, since such encounters are so chaotic and uncivil by nature.
 
No, I don't see that as a violation. Eliminating them from making a speech another group opposes certainly is.

For example, students storming a stage and grabbing the microphone of someone giving a speech in opposition to illegal immigration. That would be a clear violation.

No, it wouldn't. It would be assault.
 
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 way you have phrased this, no. That would mean the majority on some issue would have to see their Constitutional rights throttled in some way to handle fairness with the minority. It does not really even sound like something plausible to enforce, and would be a blatant violation of the Constitution anyway. I do not recall anything in the Founders writings talking about our rights this way, and even though they often warned of "factions" they did not specifically write all that much to deal with the pooling of like minded people into ideologies that end up a majority.
 
I've only actually spent a significant amount of time around a protest march/meeting on ONE occasion.

That was at the Mall in D.C., during a war-protester march and a veteran's Gathering of Eagles counter-protest, where I was an Event Marshal and tasked with trying to keep the peace in coordination with the DC Park Police (a very professional organization that earned my deepest respect that day, btw).

It was quite an education.

On both sides, there were those who conducted themselves with dignity and restraint, and those who seemed flat damn determined to provoke someone into violence with extreme verbage and actions. Both sides seemed determined to drown each other out much of the time. There were an estimated 30,000 present, and it was a chaotic madhouse.

This caused me to conclude that protests and counter-protests are NOT places where one may expect polite and civil debate, or even much reasonable behavior, out of either side. They seem to feed off each other and get more extreme as the clash goes on.

To get to my point... where there have been instances of pro and anti SSM protests/counterprotests, I've no doubt there were uncivil acts on both sides, perhaps including people trying to drown each other out.

However I would not attribute such behavior as a general norm for either side, since such encounters are so chaotic and uncivil by nature.

You're such a diplomat I think I'm going to start calling you Kissinger.:lol:

You are right though. Protests tend to bring out the crazies by the truckload and it certainly does work both ways. Basically it works out just as well in person as it does on any of the threads we see right here.
 
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.


Intimidation is a crime. The fact is, both the speaker and the person "drowning out" the other person is exercising their free speech.

It's not perfect...but free speech is protection from the government not criticism of your speech by other citizens.
 
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 believe that private individuals and groups should be able to do, what they like. If they do not want to publish something it is their affair.

That should not be so, for public media.

Or why should Gay Times be forced to publish articles explaining the reservations many have as to the legitimacy of the situation? I see no reason.
 
You're such a diplomat I think I'm going to start calling you Kissinger.:lol:

....



Thank you, but you do me too much honor. :)
 
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.
Disagreeing with someone, or protesting, is not the same as using suasion to prevent them from talking.

Even something like a boycott is not drowning someone out. The subject of said boycott is fully capable of finding their own ways of expressing their views.

There may be a few situations where a platform gets taken over by critics; e.g. Jindal's #AskBobby hashtag resulted in epic trolling, and any genuine questions for Jindal are effectively buried. However, that is more a PR screwup than anyone trying to censor Jindal.
 
Back
Top Bottom