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.
Last edited by Realist1; 08-08-09 at 07:13 AM.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Your link proves she was a Republican. Let's look at the substance of the "proof" she's a Republican operative--her LinkedIn Profile:
- Her LinkedIn Groups and interests--Vice-chair, Republican Party of Kewaunee County, Executive Committee Member, 8th Congressional District Republican Party of Wisconsin, Member, Republican Party of Wisconsin, Republican National Committee. Ok, she's interested in Republican politics and politicians. That makes her a Republican "operative"? Hardly. FAIL.
- Her most recent role in the local Republican Party ended in February 2008. She stated on camera she had not paid her dues in "2 years"; if she paid her dues in 2007, her membership in the Republican Party would have lapsed in early 2008--exactly when her LinkedIn profile shows her involvement in the local Republican Party ending. This puts her on the payroll of the RNC? Hardly. FAIL.
- She worked on John Gard's Congressional Campaign. Of course, that sort of PR work is what she does for a living. So making a living promoting people and causes makes her an operative of the RNC? Hardly. FAIL.
Nothing on her LinkedIn profile supports anything but her original contention at the town hall meeting--that she was there on her own, as a mother, not as part of any organized political agenda.
Further, she didn't disrupt the proceedings. She asked civil questions in a civil tone. She was not disorderly, she did not disturb the peace. Not only is there no proof that she was a "plant", but even if she were, she did not do anything that could be considered a violation of the law. If this is an example of the kind of "fake" protester you wish to incarcerate, then your stance is even more odious and unAmerican than it seemed at the beginning.
Last edited by celticlord; 08-08-09 at 11:28 AM.
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but simply answering your question.
Last edited by Devil505; 08-08-09 at 11:32 AM.
The "Was" a Republican dodge is total BS. (she isn't a current Republican because she claims she hasn't paid her recent dues???)
Suppose in 1954, the FBI arrested a communist agent who they could prove was the current cell leader in his city. How far do you think a defense of "I'm not a communist....I haven't paid my party dues this month" would get him at trial?
I have misjudged you as a man of your word, who agreed to acknowledge proof when presented to you. I further guessed that you would simply deny ANY proof as bogus & you have lived up to my expectations.
Your torturing of logic does not negate that fact that this woman was attempting to deceive the people & media by hiding her GOP affiliation.
I have completed my part of the bargain....You have reneged on yours. Let any other member who engages you in debate understand that you are not a man of your word.
If your word means nothing to you.......Why should it mean anything to anyone else?
We are drifting off topic & into specifics so I will end this conversation right now.
(if you wish to continue it, bring it here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspi...ts-staged.html (Healthcare Rally Protests Staged)
Last edited by Devil505; 08-08-09 at 11:58 AM.
First Amendment itself precludes such an action.
If a person speaks out loudly, boorishly, and disruptively, seeking to co-opt and frame public debate, while it is arguable that such a person intrudes upon the First Amendment rights of others, Congress is precluded from criminalizing that person's own First Amendment rights. The power of Congress to pass laws circumscribing free speech is itself greatly circumscribed.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The broadest justification* would be Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes "clear and present danger" rule, articulated in Schenck v United States (249 US 47):Does mere shouting and unruly behavior rise to the level of a substantive evil that Congress has the right and duty to prevent? Hardly. At worst it is disturbing the peace, and, as such, it is the duty of the state and the municipality to regulate. Congress lacks the competence to legislate a federal disturbing the peace standard.The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
If a person becomes unruly in a public setting, the local constabulary are already sufficiently endowed with legal recourse to contain the situation and remove the unruly person; there is no need to amplify their powers in this regard.
*It should be noted that the "clear and present danger" rule of Schenck was further circumscribed by Whitney v People of the State of California (274 US 357) and again by Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 US 444), which established a standard of "imminent lawless action" in place of a "clear and present danger."
Last edited by celticlord; 08-08-09 at 11:56 AM.
What others will think of my words, here or elsewhere, is a matter for them and their respective consciences. I have no apology to make, nor will I. I have stated my case, and I have stated how you have failed to make your case.
I will also state that this thread is not about proving one person or another is a "plant" at any town hall meeting, but to discuss the merits of legal sanction against such persons. I rebutted your assertion of proof that Ms Blish was such a person to illustrate the fecklessness and shaky legal (and political) foundation upon which such sanctions would be predicated. Your commentary in this thread amounts to a call for criminalizing political affiliations--which is itself a violation of people's First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Regardless of why a person is at a town hall meeting, it is their right to be their, and it is their right to be heard. You have offered no convincing argument why that should not be so.
Going to say this once, to both sides.
This thread is not talking about any specific event. Its the only reason its here, rather than conspiracy theories. If the continued attempts to either steer it towards a singular event, by either side, then action will be taken with the poster, the thread, or both.