• 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!

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

Should protesters be allowed to curb free speech in this country?

  • Yes. Protests are protected by the Constitution.

    Votes: 20 55.6%
  • No. If protesters stop free speech, they should be removed by police.

    Votes: 14 38.9%
  • If fake protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • Total voters
    36
Who says that "fake" can't be peaceful?
Nobody. This thread wouldn't even exist if all protests were peaceable & did not infringe on others First Amendment rights.

Your poll does not talk about "peacefulness" at all. And yes, thugs have the right to free speech. And can you please tell me how voicing your opinion loudly somehow prevents someone else to have free speech? Furthermore, the amendment states CONGRESS shall not infringe on the rights of free speech. So private citizens could stop free speech all they want and it wouldn't be against the constitution, though I do not see how that is possible.

How is it possible for protesters to prevent the free speech of anyone else?

My poll assumes that peaceful protests would not hinder the free speech of others.

"How is it possible for protesters to prevent the free speech of anyone else?" by yelling loudly with the very intention of stopping free speech.
 
Nobody. This thread wouldn't even exist if all protests were peaceable & did not infringe on others First Amendment rights.

How can a protest infringe on someone else 1st amendment right? If this is the case people are arrested. It has happened many times before when protesters and counter protesters got out of hand.

The only way they could is to physically assault someone or do something akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. None of this happened. No one was arrested or hauled out.

AGAIN you have no ground to stand on here.

My poll assumes that peaceful protests would not hinder the free speech of others.

The poll is a nonsensical piece of drivel.

"How is it possible for protesters to prevent the free speech of anyone else?" by yelling loudly with the very intention of stopping free speech.

Yelling loudly is not considered by law inhibiting someones free speech.

As soon as yelling becomes illegal, you let me know. :lol:
 
OK..Let's make this even more generic:

I take out a local permit to assemble at the town park & peaceably discuss why our community should start a trash pickup program.

As I begin my speech, a group of loud protesters try to drown me out by screaming insults & blasting air horns so the crowd can't even hear my words.
Anyone disagree that the police should stop/remove the protesters, who are disturbing the peace at a permitted meeting?

OK....Now let's say some of the protesters are dumb & admit to being paid operatives from the local (private) sanitation company that has the contract to p/u residential trash.

I would argue that this admission brings the case to a whole new level & may warrant prosecution of the paid operatives & the sanitation company itself, for "Restraint of Trade" or some other, more serious crime.
 
Last edited:
"How is it possible for protesters to prevent the free speech of anyone else?" by yelling loudly with the very intention of stopping free speech.
The whole point of a protest is to voice your opinion against something you have strong disagreement with. Do you honestly expect protesters to calmly "speak" in normal voices? NO protest is EVER like that, or at least VERY few are.

If you think that shouting loudly constitutes stopping free speech, you are essentially against nearly all protesting that ever occurs.

And how does shouting loudly stop free speech? The person who can't be heard could always go somewhere else. Furthermore, the 1st amendment prevents Congress from making LAWS that prevent free speech. Protesting by individuals can NEVER go against the Constitution because no law is being made. Period. This entire topic, as I said before, is ridiculous.

Do you think ACORN protests have violated free speech? What about anti-Bush protests? Protests against the Vietnam war? Do you think any of these protests, because they involve people shouting loudly, should be allowed? If you say yes you are a hypocrite. The protesters against governmental healthcare you have continually referred to are no less "peaceful" than any other protesters one can expect. I only bring this up because it is clear to me (and most other viewers of this topic) that you created this topic on the premise of those protests.
As I begin my speech, a group of loud protesters try to drown me out by screaming insults & blasting air horns so the crowd can't even hear my words.
Anyone disagree that the police should stop/remove the protesters, who are disturbing the peace at a permitted meeting?
Of course not. Blasting air horns and yelling insults is very disrupting. But they are not removed because they are preventing free speech. They are removed because they are "disturbing the peace." The town hall meetings involved angry citizens making very valid arguments, and when they agreed with each other they applauded and cheering. When congressmen/senators at the meetings said something absurd, they made a noise that you would expect an upset crowd to make. Do you see the people at the recent town hall meetings as equivalent to the people blasting these horns?
 
Last edited:
The whole point of a protest is to voice your opinion against something you have strong disagreement with. Do you honestly expect protesters to calmly "speak" in normal voices? NO protest is EVER like that, or at least VERY few are.

I agree with the intent of protests, but not all protests are protected. How about answering my above scenario?




I take out a local permit to assemble at the town park & peaceably discuss why our community should start a trash pickup program.

As I begin my speech, a group of loud protesters try to drown me out by screaming insults & blasting air horns so the crowd can't even hear my words.
Anyone disagree that the police should stop/remove the protesters, who are disturbing the peace at a permitted meeting?

OK....Now let's say some of the protesters are dumb & admit to being paid operatives from the local (private) sanitation company that has the contract to p/u residential trash.

I would argue that this admission brings the case to a whole new level & may warrant prosecution of the paid operatives & the sanitation company itself, for "Restraint of Trade" or some other, more serious crime.
 
Last edited:
Of course not. Blasting air horns and yelling insults is very disrupting. But they are not removed because they are preventing free speech. Do you see the people at the recent town hall meetings as equivalent to the people blasting these horns?

Off topic but to answer your question...Yes. The intent is to shout down the words of those they disagree with so they cannot be heard. Exactly the same motive in both cases.

(I agree that the charge would be simply disturbing the peace in the first case..... but how about if they were paid operatives from a private sanitation company trying to stop the citizens from hearing my words? Same thing?
 
Last edited:
Exactly the same motive in both cases.
Off topic but to answer your question...Yes. The intent is to shout down the words of those they disagree with. And that is where you are completely wrong. The people in the town hall meetings had the intent of shouting out THEIR believes, not silencing the beliefs of others. They did not scream insults and blare horns. They engaged in a debate, which naturally became very heated as the crowd cheered for those they agreed with. They were not disturbing the public peace. They were simply voicing their opinions.

Blaring horns and yelling insults is not voicing your opinion, it is meant to silence that of others. But to say that by angrily shouting their opinions the town hall protesters were trying to silence all others is a baseless claim and you quite frankly cannot support it. Period.
(I agree that the charge would be simply disturbing the peace in the first case..... but how about if they were paid operatives from a private sanitation company trying to stop the citizens from hearing my words? Same thing?
In a sense, yes. But the company could be charged with disturbing the peace as well.
 
Last edited:
Protesters drown out Tampa health care summit
TAMPA – Bitter divisions over reforming America's health care system exploded Thursday night in Tampa amid cat calls, jeering and shoving at a town hall meeting.

"Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!" dozens of people shouted as U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor struggled to talk about health insurance reforms under consideration in Washington, D.C.

"There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it,'' Castor offered, immediately drowned out by groans and boos.

She pressed on, mostly unheard among the screams from the audience of more than 200.

"Tell the truth! Tell the truth!"

"Read the bill!"

"Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!"

Instead, hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points to challenge supporters.

An overflow crowd of critics was left waiting outside the building – and in some cases pounding on the meeting room doors – while health care reform activists complained that Democrats and union members were guided into the room for prime seats.
U.S. Rep. Castor said a strong debate is healthy but suggested that many of the protesters who have shown up at town hall meetings in recent weeks would have staunchly opposed the creation of Medicare and Social Security a few decades ago.

"The insurance industry and … Republican activists are manufacturing a lot of these phony protests,'' said Castor, who has been closely involved in the health care debate and said she won't support any bill lacking a government-run insurance option.

She left before the forum ending, which drew more boos. State Rep. Reed said she encouraged Castor to leave because nobody could hear her any way.
So Republicans can not debate, or present ideas any more. All they can do is seek to suppress.
 
There already is a thread regarding this in conspiracy theories. This thread asks a generic poll question & why some are trying to stifle/derail this thread only discloses the weakness of your argument & your fear of what you don't want heard by the American public.

:rofl I don't fear anything they have to say. I have read the HCP as it stands to date. I know what is in it and how it is trying to take away our freedoms.

The poll question may be generic but your post that started the thread was NOT generic. You started this thread stating specific instances which you tried to use to reinforce your poll question.
 
The people in the town hall meetings had the intent of shouting out THEIR believes, not silencing the beliefs of others. They did not scream insults and blare horns. They engaged in a debate, which naturally became very heated as the crowd cheered for those they agreed with. They were not disturbing the public peace. They were simply voicing their opinions.

Blaring horns and yelling insults is not voicing your opinion, it is meant to silence that of others. But to say that by angrily shouting their opinions the town hall protesters were trying to silence all others is a baseless claim and you quite frankly cannot support it. Period.

In a sense, yes. But the company could be charged with disturbing the peace as well.

So, if it can be proven that the intent of a protest is not to make their views known, bujt specifically to prevent the words of the other side from being heard, should that be illegal?
 
So, if it can be proven that the intent of a protest is not to make their views known, bujt specifically to prevent the words of the other side from being heard, should that be illegal?
No. If at can be proven that the protesters are doing nothing more than disrupting the public peace, then those protesters can be removed.
So Republicans can not debate, or present ideas any more. All they can do is seek to suppress.
Oh please. I can offer just as many examples of protesters with valid concerns.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRGQ0EvzcjA"]YouTube - O'Reilly Calls Democrats Hypocrites Re: Town Hall Protests[/ame]
Now we all can see these town hall meetings were very heated and loud. But they aren't illegal, and they aren't much different from any other protests.
 
Last edited:
No. If at can be proven that the protesters are doing nothing more than disrupting the public peace, then those protesters can be removed.

Agreed, as there is a very clear definition between opposition, and disruption. Opposition is what the Constitution guarantees us, it give us the right to free speech and ideas, to attend a town hall and tell your Congress members that you are opposed to his or her policies.

Is anyone disputing that here? Not me, and not anyone I have see to date. What is in protest is when groups like Americans for Prosperity and other lobbying firms are organizing people to not simply attend a town hall for their Congress member to voice their free opinions, but rather to attend for the sole purpose of disrupting so that no other citizens may partake in the town hall. THAT is what we are opposed to. It really is that simple.

Oh please. I can offer just as many examples of protesters with valid concerns.
YouTube - O'Reilly Calls Democrats Hypocrites Re: Town Hall Protests
Now we all can see these town hall meetings were very heated and loud. But they aren't illegal, and they aren't much different from any other protests.

Sure there may be people with honest and valid concerns, but they are down being discredited by the actions of a few who are not attending to voice opinions, but rather to suppress opinions because that is their tactic. If people want to stand outside holding signs, that is their right. But it is infringing on other citizens rights to meet with their congress member when they are shouting out so loud as to drown out any discussion, when they are banging on windows so that nobody can discuss. That is suppression, and that is what some on the right see now as their tactic of choice.

If some on the left now attend a town hall and do the same, then it is no different. The same rules apply. But we are dealing right here, right now with a dishonest campaign by those on the right to disrupt discourse in this country. That is un-American in my book. It goes against the idealogy of a democracy and flow of free ideas and expression.
 
& I stand behind my idea that new federal laws need to be enacted that will punish those who deliberately travel around the country for the purpose of infringing on other citizen's First Amendment rights. (If they are part of a larger conspiracy & do this for money, all the harsher the sentence they should receive)

So you decided that people who "disrupt the peace" should be sent to Federal Prison under the standard that if someone speaks loudly and with passion at a public event they are culpable and if they attend the event because someone told them about the event they will get extra time. I understand your point.
 
So you deny conservatives have been writing memo's encouraging their readers to disrupt town hall meetings?

OK, Conservatives cannot speak their own point of view. They cannot encourage others to attend events that are open to the general public. And I assume they cannot attend events open to the general public. :roll:

You deny that many of the chants of these "Protesters" are canned & taken right out of the RNC talking points?

OK, Conservative are not allowed to have or use Slogans or Chants and it should be forbidden that any Conservative Organization even try to make one or even to give info to Concervatives about anything of political or social importance. :2razz:

You deny that many of these "legitimate" protesters admit that they don't live anywhere near the town that is holding this local meeting?

I see if the issue is a national one, and if successfully passed would invasively
effect the lives and well being of Conservitaves they should only attend their own local events (which they should not) and which may not exist or if it does does not have a member of the House/Senate on the appropriate Committee or has some government drone bureaucrat which is only there to law down what is going to occur. The decision makers are too important to deal with such people. :cuckoo:

Anyway, we're getting off topic which is should these protests be allowed if they are shouting down their neighber's free speech & they are proven to be paid operatives of either the HC industry or the RNC, or both.

OK, Conservatives cannot speak loudly and since they are speaking they must be paid since they would not say what they are saying if they were not. Do you even understand what you are saying? :lol:
 
Right or wrong? Left or right? Hello? Oh wait...here it is:


You know this tactic of yours is annoying, well that is the kindest way I can put it I guess. Annoying. Dishonest, I can use that one as well. Disingenuous? Yep, that would work perfectly also.

For someone who first claimed red herring, I am amazed I can still move around what with all the bleeping red herrings you have been throwing. So fine, we have established clearly what is going on. You want to make claims that the left is disrupting town hall meetings now, please do post evidence or stop lying.

p.s. If you are so consistent in your outrage over government spending, why do you seem to care so little about the fact that under two administrations the national debt has ballooned faster than anyone?
Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
Ronald Reagan went from $997B (09/30/1981) to $2,857B (09/29/1989)=$2.8 8 years
George H. Bush $2,857B (09/29/1989) to $4,411 (09/30/1993)=$1.5t 4 years
Clinton went from $4,411 (09/30/1993) to $5,807 (09/30/2001)= $1.4t 8 years
George W. Bush $5,807 (09/30/2001) to $10,024 (09/30/2008) $4.2t in 8 years

Not done with George W. Bush though. We still have to add up Medicare's 2003 bill, that is another $1.2 trillion - Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion
Can we ever forget Iraq? That gift to debt will end up between $3-5 trillion more -The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

So, with George W. Bush, we have a President who inherited budget surplus, took into the red almost immediately (no it was not 9/11, look at the budget, it was tax cuts that stimulated jack). Added a debt of $4.2 trillion, + $1.2 trillion more from Medicare in the years to come, and $3-5 trillion for Iraq).

So Obama has inherited a financial meltdown, a budget deficit, and an economy that some thought was on the precipice of a Great Depression. What is the state of the economy today? Well we are now 6 months in emerging from the greatest postwar recession. He has inherited a mess, but if he follows Clinton's path, you should be damn grateful we have a Democrat in office and NOT a Republican wouldn't you say? You are so strongly against government spending, debt and all right? No you are not consistent at all.
Off Topic we are not arguing which party is the worse spender of borrowed funds we are arguing whether citizens should be sent to prison if they protest loudly or perhaps more accurately wrongly. I personally do not care which party is worse i don't like either one and i believe a new Conservative Party is needed on your point.
 
Since I & many others feel that the shouting protest at many health care rallies is being orchestrated, & appears designed to prevent the American voter from hearing the other side of the issue, I ask the above poll question.
Whether or not our suspicions (including those of press Sec Gibbs at today's briefing C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics) prove to be true, my poll question remains.

The last option should read: If fake, (operatives proven to be merely "Posing" as concerned citizens while actually being paid money for the purpose of inhibiting free speech) protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.

Good points. Very thought-provoking.
If it could be proven tha the protesters were "fake", or were being paid to create a disturbance and inhibit free speech, then they should be prevented from doing so.

This reminds me of stuff I've heard about the Vietnam war protests, how the government would send in fake protesters to incite violence, then send the cops in swinging on the entire crowd.
 
This reminds me of stuff I've heard about the Vietnam war protests, how the government would send in fake protesters to incite violence, then send the cops in swinging on the entire crowd.
I've never heard anyone claim the government was doing that, mostly fringe groups on either side of the argument.
 
I've never heard anyone claim the government was doing that, mostly fringe groups on either side of the argument.

This is not necessarily been a big secret the past four decades. I would say everyone knows about this, but I guess everyone but you?
 
So you deny conservatives have been writing memo's encouraging their readers to disrupt town hall meetings?

You deny that many of the chants of these "Protesters" are canned & taken right out of the RNC talking points?

You deny that many of these "legitimate" protesters admit that they don't live anywhere near the town that is holding this local meeting?

Anyway, we're getting off topic which is should these protests be allowed if they are shouting down their neighber's free speech & they are proven to be paid operatives of either the HC industry or the RNC, or both.

While I disagree with your characterization that any such laws would necessarily be " the option of treason and tyranny".....I agree that any such law would have to be very carefully drafted & applied so as to not inhibit free speech.

The alternative to such new laws would be to do nothing, which would allow possibly disingenuous operatives, from either side, to stifle all our First Amendment rights through intimidation...... by not allowing free speech that they disagree with to be heard..
I believe carefully worded laws could protect all of our First Amendment rights while still allowing dissent, but am mindful of the dangers.

The problem is that you do not understand is that criminal law is more like a hammer than a picking tool. It is a crude implement and its implementation under your proposal would cause great damage to the ideals of our society.
 
This is not necessarily been a big secret the past four decades. I would say everyone knows about this, but I guess everyone but you?
Right, so again, with no facts, your saying everyone has this grand insight into a conspiracy that the government sent in plants to counter Vietnam protesters. :roll: Okay, sure, whatever you say there chief.
 
Right, so again, with no facts, your saying everyone has this grand insight into a conspiracy that the government sent in plants to counter Vietnam protesters. :roll: Okay, sure, whatever you say there chief.

WTF do they teach in history class these days? Ok, I will grant you this, maybe you are young and just not in tune. But this was no grand secret, but also was not a grand conspiracy. Local police, FBI, and even the CIA all partook in infiltrating groups they saw as subversive; i.e. anti-war and civil-rights. Good god o'mighty, did they not even teach you this in regards to the Civil Rights movement? Do you not learn anything about Nixon beyond Watergate? Go to a library please and check out some history books.
 
WTF do they teach in history class these days? Ok, I will grant you this, maybe you are young and just not in tune. But this was no grand secret, but also was not a grand conspiracy. Local police, FBI, and even the CIA all partook in infiltrating groups they saw as subversive; i.e. anti-war and civil-rights. Good god o'mighty, did they not even teach you this in regards to the Civil Rights movement? Do you not learn anything about Nixon beyond Watergate? Go to a library please and check out some history books.
okay genius, how many counterprotesters stepped up to defend soldiers getting spit on by war protesters when they returned? Yeah, thought so, that would be the first clue that the government didn't subsidize counterprotest. Were there counter actions taken, yes, but not counterprotests en masse as you like to claim.
 
okay genius, how many counterprotesters stepped up to defend soldiers getting spit on by war protesters when they returned? Yeah, thought so, that would be the first clue that the government didn't subsidize counterprotest. Were there counter actions taken, yes, but not counterprotests en masse as you like to claim.

What are you blabbering about now? Counter-protesters, soldiers, subsidize, etc..? Look, 1069 said:
This reminds me of stuff I've heard about the Vietnam war protests, how the government would send in fake protesters to incite violence, then send the cops in swinging on the entire crowd.
To which it was the common practice then for everyone from local police on up to the FBI and CIA to infiltrate groups. It was also well known that a tactic used was for some to infiltrate these groups to rile up the crowd so that the police would have an excuse to make arrests. The joke was always that the hippy anti-war protesters always recognized them as "Narcs", or so they claimed (maybe embarrassed to admit they got duped). Do read up on COINTELPRO. This was a well known program used to discredit the anti-war movement.
 
I've never heard anyone claim the government was doing that, mostly fringe groups on either side of the argument.

Because you never heard about it doesn't negate the fact that it's true. Nixon sent teams of counter-protesters out to intimidate the real war protesters. (Repubs are big on sending in their own group of "Brownshirts"...Ever hear of Nixon's (illegal) "Plumbers" who worked out of the basement of the White House & committed illegal acts for King Nixon?)

Here's a quick link, there are tons of links Watergate - The White House Plumbers
 
Last edited:
Because you never heard about it doesn't negate the fact that it's true. Nixon sent teams of counter-protesters out to intimidate the real war protesters. (Repubs are big on sending in their own group of "Brownshirts"...Ever hear of Nixon's (illegal) "Plumbers" who worked out of the basement of the White House & committed illegal acts for King Nixon?)

Here's a quick link, there are tons of links Watergate - The White House Plumbers
That's not counter protest, that's burglary. What we are talking about is a sitting president during that era, or any other government agency sending people to shout down protesters in the streets.
 
Back
Top Bottom