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 36 of 43 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 425

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

  1. #351
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Off Topic (seepage 17...Mod warning)
    Fine, show me where the protesters against any of the proposals in Congress are engaging in assault and battery or shutting the door against the those in favor of said proposals. One doesn't need to go to an emergency room for a shouting match.

  2. #352
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,753

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

    Additionally, the idea that the first amendment only protects peaceable assembly is very seductive. No one likes hearing people make asses of themselves by chanting a slogan loudly, yelling loudly, or whatever.

    However, while I personally do not like it, that does not mean it should be illegal.

    I chose to consider the word "peaceable" to mean "non-violent", or the like. Indeed, that is why the "disturbing the peace" charge is available to law enforcement. To prevent an assembly from becoming violent.
    At least IMO.
    Education.

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

  3. #353
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

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

    Unless the loud protest is "orchestrated" or "staged" by the government itself, there is no First Amendment issue. However, attempting to criminalize an "orchestrated" protest IS a First Amendment issue.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #354
    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
    That makes sense then. But what if someone traveled from one side of the state to the other side of the state?
    That would mean it's INTRA-State & not INTER_State, usually precluding federal involvement. Like "Interstate flight to avoid prosecution" is a federal crime where simply running from the police is not a federal crime if state borders are not crossed.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    .... For example, from one election district to another, with intentions to "infringe on the free speech rights of others" in that other district? Would this not also be a problem in your eyes?
    Yes it would be a problem but I doubt we could get Congress to involve the FBI if no state borders are crossed.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    If so, would you not wish a state law to be put in place to the same effect as your proposed federal law?
    I would favor that but I don't think any State would pass such a law to guarantee federal rights??...but maybe I'm wrong. (as I said, I'm not an attty or AUSA)



    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    And therein lies the issue most take with your proposal.
    There is far too much possibility for misuse, misinterpretation, addition, amendment, etc. in such a law, which, IMO, is why the constitution doesn't try, but simply allows all.
    There is always a danger but there is also a danger if we do nothing. (Look at what's going on now)


    The loudness of speech would obviously not be the sole determnant &your are asking me to right a very complex law...off the cuff as it where.





    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    What's an "AUSA"?
    Asst U.S. Atty...They are the career lawyers who work for Justice & do most of the real work.(try most federal cases, assist investigators with legal opinions, etc) U.S. Atty's are political appointees who, once appointed by the President are not supposed to subject to petty political considerations.
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-08-09 at 08:51 PM.

  5. #355
    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
    Additionally, the idea that the first amendment only protects peaceable assembly is very seductive. No one likes hearing people make asses of themselves by chanting a slogan loudly, yelling loudly, or whatever.

    However, while I personally do not like it, that does not mean it should be illegal.
    So anyone arrested by the locals for disturbing the peace has had the First Amendment rights violated by the police?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I chose to consider the word "peaceable" to mean "non-violent", ......
    Tell you what....Make that argument to the judge & see where it gets you.....(SLAM!!)
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-08-09 at 09:02 PM.

  6. #356
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

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

    They say a picture is worth a 1000 words. look at this picture of protesters. On the right, protesters with home made signs. On the left sheeple's with signs made by a pro Obama care organization. Who are the grass roots concerned Americans and who are the Orchestrated (fake) lockstep socialist Obamacrats?



    Orchestrated by healthcareforamericanow.org


    All of these pictures came from a demonstration in Denver. Notice the difference?
    Last edited by SgtRock; 08-08-09 at 09:29 PM.
    When America is strong the world is calm, When America is weak tyrants and terrorist slaughter the meek. ~ SgtRock

  7. #357
    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?

    Your signature tell me all I need to know.
    Do you really believe Obama wants to kill old people?
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-08-09 at 09:29 PM.

  8. #358
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,753

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    That would mean it's INTRA-State & not INTER_State, usually precluding federal involvement. Like "Interstate flight to avoid prosecution" is a federal crime where simply running from the police is not a federal crime if state borders are not crossed.
    True.

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Yes it would be a problem but I doubt we could get Congress to involve the FBI if no state borders are crossed.
    Also very likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    I would favor that but I don't think any State would pass such a law to guarantee federal rights??...but maybe I'm wrong. (as I said, I'm not an Atty or AUSA)
    Well, from your explanation of things, a federal law would only prevent the actions you wish it to if the persons committing those actions crossed state lines. Thus, a state law would not be guaranteeing federal laws so much as extending them to the more local level...
    If you see what I mean…

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    There is always a danger but there is also a danger if we do nothing. (Look at what's going on now)
    Well, I view the danger presented by doing something to be far more serious than the "danger" (which I do not view as a danger at all) of doing nothing. And no, I haven't looked closely (or much at all) at what is going on now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    The loudness of speech would obviously not be the sole determinant & you are asking me to write a very complex law...off the cuff as it were.
    Of course other determinants would be required.
    Regarding the complexity of such a law: Not really, I am simply attempting to illustrate the vast potential for infringing on our first amendment free speech rights that such a law attempting to "protect" them could offer to someone who was inclined to misuse it. I don't want the government to have that kind of power. They have far too much already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Asst U.S. Atty...They are the career lawyers who work for Justice & do most of the real work.(try most federal cases, assist investigators with legal opinions, etc) U.S. Atty's are political appointees who, once appointed by the President are not supposed to subject to petty political considerations.
    Ah. I sense an another entire topic potential here. Thanks for the clarification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    So anyone arrested by the locals for disturbing the peace has had the First Amendment rights violated by the police?
    Such could be argued, and in many cases is (I would think).

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Tell you what....Make that argument to the judge & see where it gets you.....(SLAM!!)
    I do not understand your meaning here. How did a judge get involved?
    Last edited by The Mark; 08-08-09 at 09:46 PM.
    Education.

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

  9. #359
    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

    Such could be argued, and in many cases is (I would think).
    Due to the hour & my condition (Flu) I will only respond to a few of your points in this post.
    As far as your above statement is concerned, anything at all can be argued in court. The rub is what argument the judge or jury will "Buy". If you argued your thoughts (about disturbing the peace requiring violence on the part of a defendant........I think you would be laughed right out of court & directly into the slammer!
    (example: you & I have had a verbal fight so I park my car outside your bedroom window at 2:00am & lean on the horn for an hour straight. The police come & tell me to stop but I say...."Since I haven't committed any acts of violence, you can't arrest me for disturbing the peace.)



    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I do not understand your meaning here. How did a judge get involved?
    Any criminal legal proceedings will ultimately end up in court to decide the "facts.", unless of course a plea deal is entered into.
    The court trial, with judge or Magistrate, is the whole ball of wax....Everything else is just preliminary window dressing & jockeying for position by both the defendant & prosecution.
    A defendant can argue anything he wants.....I'm innocent because I was wearing shined shoes!....The judge/jury will decide which side they believe.
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-08-09 at 10:22 PM.

  10. #360
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,753

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Due to the hour & my condition (Flu) I will only respond to a few of your points in this post.
    As far as your above statement is concerned, anything at all can be argued in court. The rub is what argument the judge or jury will "Buy". If you argued your thoughts (about disturbing the peace requiring violence on the part of a defendant........I think you would be laughed right out of court & directly into the slammer!
    (Example: you & I have had a verbal fight so I park my car outside your bedroom window at 2:00am & lean on the horn for an hour straight. The police come & tell me to stop but I say...."Since I haven't committed any acts of violence, you can't arrest me for disturbing the peace.)

    Any criminal legal proceedings will ultimately end up in court to decide the "facts.", unless of course a plea deal is entered into.
    The court trial, with judge or Magistrate, is the whole ball of wax....Everything else is just preliminary window dressing & jockeying for position by both the defendant & prosecution.
    A defendant can argue anything he wants.....I'm innocent because I was wearing shined shoes!....The judge/jury will decide which side they believe.
    Your statements are all correct. However, I believe a misunderstanding arose somewhere.

    When I made the statement which I think prompted this line of debate, I was not attempting to argue that I could defend myself against a "disturbing the peace" charge by saying it was non-violent.

    I was, rather, thinking of a tidbit I read on the Wikipedia page about the First Amendment.

    Link:[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Here[/ame].
    In Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the Supreme Court was first requested to strike down a law violating the Free Speech Clause. The case involved Charles Schenck, who had, during the war, published leaflets challenging the conscription system then in effect. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck's conviction for violating the Espionage Act. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, suggested that "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."

    The "clear and present danger" test of Schenck was extended in Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919), again by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The case involved a speech made by Eugene V. Debs, a political activist. Debs had not spoken any words that posed a "clear and present danger" to the conscription system, but a speech in which he denounced militarism was nonetheless found to be sufficient grounds for his conviction. Justice Holmes suggested that the speech had a "natural tendency" to occlude the draft.

    Thus, the Supreme Court effectively shaped the First Amendment in such a manner as to permit a multitude of restrictions on speech. Further restrictions on speech were accepted by the Supreme Court when it decided Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Sanford suggested that states could punish words that "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state." Lawmakers were given the freedom to decide which speech would constitute a danger.
    This indicated to me that any protest or exercise of ones free speech rights which did not pose a direct or imminent threat to others would be permissible. Thus my statement regarding "non-violence”. I should have been clearer.

    Hope your flu issue is cleared up shortly.
    Last edited by The Mark; 08-08-09 at 10:55 PM.
    Education.

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

Page 36 of 43 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... 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
  •