View Poll Results: Should protesters be allowed to curb free speech in this country?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Protests are protected by the Constitution.

    36 63.16%
  • No. If protesters stop free speech, they should be removed by police.

    20 35.09%
  • If fake protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.

    12 21.05%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 32 of 43 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 425

Thread: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

  1. #311
    Advisor Realist1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    11-27-09 @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    537

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    I can't argue with you there either.

    BUT

    If one side hires thugs to get in the face of others they should not run home to mommy crying when thugs from the other side give them a bloody nose.
    If,,,or when you find anyone opposed to the B.O. Health Care Boondoggle, that's being "bought"...I'll agree with you. Until then,,,we KNOW the Unions are "Bought, and Paid" for.
    Last edited by Realist1; 08-08-09 at 09:13 AM.

  2. #312
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Realist1 View Post
    If,,,or when you find anyone opposed to the B.O. Health Care Boondoggle, that's being "bought"...I'll agree with you. Until then,,,we KNOW the Unions are "Bought, and Paid" for.
    Here you go. (bought & paid for by the GOP posing as "Just A Mom")

    Think Progress Woman Who Said She Was ‘Just A Mom’ At Town Hall Meeting Is Exposed As A Republican Operative

  3. #313
    Advisor Realist1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    11-27-09 @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    537

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    As it's stated,,, She was the vice chair of the Republican Party of Kewaunee County until last year. That implies "Past Tense".

    The Union Thugs beating on Americans who disagree with being forced into a Govt. Health Care Boondoggle is in the Present.

    True?...

  4. #314
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    From page 17

    Moderator's Warning:
    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.



    I hope the mods will carry through on the above warning by dealing with the violating poster & not the thread itself. Many of us, on both side are trying to keep this thread generic & an intelligent discussion on protests rights/tactics in general. It would be a shame to allow one side to shut down this discussion, which I fear may be the ultimate goal of some.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Besides the point I just made without typing anything, I would be grateful if you would respond to my post #304, wherein I asked:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    What you are suggesting would require that somehow we legislate what, precisely, "disturbing the peace" is.
    Additionally, you suggest that we add an additional potential charge to someone "disturbing the peace", which would allow prosecution for "infringing the free speech rights of others", or something to that effect.

    Is this correct?
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #315
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Yeah, no one who is (correction was) a member of the Republican Party could ever have their own desires and concerns regarding health care. Every Republican must be receiving secret instructions from the RNC. That's why the secret decoder rings are cleverly hidden in every other box of Cracker Jacks.

    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 01:28 PM.

  6. #316
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Besides the point I just made without typing anything, I would be grateful if you would respond to my post #304, wherein I asked:
    Additionally, you suggest that we add an additional potential charge to someone "disturbing the peace", which would allow prosecution for "infringing the free speech rights of others", or something to that effect.

    Is this correct?
    Just as Congress made many previously (State jurisdiction) crimes like Murder (of a President or murder as a Hate Crime") federal offenses, I see no reason why crossing state borders with the intention of interfering with someone's First Amendment rights couldn't also be mnade a federal crime.
    I'm not asking you to agree with me, but simply answering your question.
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-08-09 at 01:32 PM.

  7. #317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Your link proves she was a Republican.
    & she was trying to deceive by hiding any affiliation she had with the GOP & saying that she was "Just A Mom".

    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
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-08-09 at 01:58 PM.

  8. #318
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Just as Congress made many previously (State jurisdiction) crimes like Murder (of a President or murder as a Hate Crime") federal offenses, I see no reason why crossing state borders with the intention of interfering with someone's First Amendment rights couldn't also be mnade a federal crime.
    I'm not asking you to agree with me, but simply answering your question.
    Actually, the First Amendment itself precludes such an action.

    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.
    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.

    The broadest justification* would be Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes "clear and present danger" rule, articulated in Schenck v United States (249 US 47):
    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.
    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.

    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 01:56 PM.

  9. #319
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    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.
    I acknowledged that you proved she was a Republican. You have proffered no evidence that she was paid to be at that town hall meeting, nor that she is in the employ of the RNC. Mere party affiliation does not disqualify her commentary, nor does it make her statement of being there "as a mom" a lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Your torturing of logic does not negate that fact that this woman was attempting to deceive the people & media by hiding her GOP affiliation.
    She said she was no longer involved in the local Republican party. How was she attempting to conceal anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    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.
    You have not, and I have not reneged. You state the matter falsely.

    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.

  10. #320
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Should Orchestrated (fake) Protests Be Allowed To Hinder Free Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I acknowledged that you proved she was a Republican. You have proffered no evidence that she was paid to be at that town hall meeting, nor that she is in the employ of the RNC. Mere party affiliation does not disqualify her commentary, nor does it make her statement of being there "as a mom" a lie.


    She said she was no longer involved in the local Republican party. How was she attempting to conceal anything?

    You have not, and I have not reneged. You state the matter falsely.

    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.
    From page 17

    Moderator's Warning:
    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.

Page 32 of 43 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •