Yes. Protests are protected by the Constitution.
No. If protesters stop free speech, they should be removed by police.
If fake protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.
Like I said before, no. It is not against the law in anyway. This "intent" issue you are talking about has absolutely no legal bearing. And by protesting, even if it prevents the other side from being heard, will always have the intent of making the views of the protesters heard.Originally Posted by Devil505
What you are saying really makes little sense. The whole point of a protest is to display opposition against something. Whether they display this opposition by yelling and shouting or peacefully holding signs really doesn't matter; they have a right to do it.
You are trying to say it is illegal to speak above somebody else, which is ridiculous.
If I were to cut someone off during an interview, would I be going against free speech? If someone is in a debate and they shout over the other person, are they stopping free speech? If so, a certain CNN reporter is guiltly of stopping free speech.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo"]YouTube - Rude CNN Reporter Needs Fired Tea Party interview CNN TeaParty Tax[/ame]
According to your logic, what the CNN reporter did should be illegal. After all, she prevented the free speech of that man by interupting him, didn't she? She rudely yelled over what he was trying to say.
The fact is that yelling loudly so somebody else cannot get their point out is not illegal or against free speech. Rude, yes. But it is not in anyway illegal. PERIOD.
The reason protesters who blare loud horns and shout insults are removed is because they are using profanities and making excessively loud noise with a horn. Here is the definition of "Disturbing the peace".
The people at these protests may have often been rude, but very few of them fall under this category. Democrats have tried to label every person in attendance as angry mobs and radical conservatives (even though there were liberals complaining about the removal of single-payer healthcare).Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.
I understand what you are trying to say, but the fact is your sentiments are just not correct, legally or logically.
Last edited by Lakryte; 08-07-09 at 02:42 PM.
but then you say this:Originally Posted by earthworm
Originally Posted by earthworm
Last edited by Devil505; 08-07-09 at 02:50 PM.
I am not talking about murder. I am talking about this free speech issue you are talking about. I did not say that intent never matters. I only said the intent you were talking about doesn't matter. Which is why I said that:Intent & motive have a tremendous amount of legal importance. If you kill someone accidentally the charge will probably be involuntary manslaughter. If your INTENTION was to kill someone, that same killing may well be deemed first degree murder.
If the intent is to stop someone else from talking it doesn't matter. That isn't illegal.Originally Posted by Lakryte
Have you nothing else to respond to in my entire post? Is that the only thing you could argue against? If so I will only assume you agree with me.
Last edited by Lakryte; 08-07-09 at 03:00 PM.
Last edited by Devil505; 08-07-09 at 03:02 PM.
That's not completely accurate, in those days medicine was limited in it's advancements(just being honest), but it was also a market with much less interference, anyone could afford medical care because it was inexpensive, we have gotten to a point in our country where everyone from the AMA to trial lawyers to the government has interfered with the natural market mechanisms and turned this system into a bloated money eating cancer(play on words not intended)I suspect that "Libertarians" would like to see health care regressed to that of 200 years ago, when the rich could have a doctor close at hand and the poor would just die...
No, we lead the civilized world by trimming off those parts that make medicine expensive, we let it work as a service, like it should, and we bring down costs naturally the right way so that people could pay out of pocket without incurring financial ruin, that is the best way, not giving the government complete control and in fact taking back the controls it should not have.I say its about time we joined the rest of the civilized world and had health care for all, as a right, but limited, of course..
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.