• 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
I have seen far too much shouting down, disrespect, etc, occur at discussions and public meetings...
People do need to learn how to speak, and how to properly conduct themselves..
If they cannot or will not do this , then some goos sealing tape across the mouth and a straight jacket are in order.
Both political parties do this and should be ashamed of themselves.

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...
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..





:lol: I did not realize this thread was a tragic comedy...... Full of drama and emotion! :lol:
 
How did you answer my question?


What do you think of the union thugs assaulting a protester? If the protester was being disrespectful, maybe he deserved the thug assault - its probably no worse than my idea of the tape and straight-jacket...


Why do you have this one sided opinion, that you claim is generic and universal, but you can not, not once bring yourself to criticize any left wing actions?


it reeks of your hyper-partisan hackery....
I doubt if either side is "clean". All participants should pay an entrance fee, this will offset the cost of the police.
As soon as anyone misbehaves, he should be escorted from the premises.
The public debates/rallies are best left to gentlemen, if there are any..
 
I doubt if either side is "clean". All participants should pay an entrance fee, this will offset the cost of the police.
As soon as anyone misbehaves, he should be escorted from the premises.
The public debates/rallies are best left to gentlemen, if there are any..




Did you just say:


If the protester was being disrespectful, maybe he deserved the thug assault - its probably no worse than my idea of the tape and straight-jacket...



:shock:
 
I do not, nor can not expect people to do things perfectly.
Man has a thing about himself - he over-reacts....Just ask Mr Gates, or the millions before him.




Put felony assault seems a bit over the top..... no?
 
MISDEMEANOR - A minor crime (as opposed to a felony). A crime - less serious than a felony - which is punishable by fine or imprisonment in a city or county jail rather than in a penitentiary.
Legal Definition of Misdemeanor

Just like torture isn't really torture right? (It's "Enhanced Interrogation?)

A misdemeanor is in fact a crime for which you can be arrested, tried & incarcerated....Anyone want to argue that point?
Yes, there is a huge gray area here. A very high level of well trained police is necessary; but at times , its an impossible task..
A true moderator is a must.. the instant anyone acts out of turn, he is escorted...
Maybe we should bring back the old practice of dueling. :confused:
 
Your highlights failed to cover a very important part of the wording:

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The word "peaceably" is no less important than any other part, & the taped protests I saw were far from peaceable.
Reading comprehension is critical. Congress is not charged with seeing to it that people may peaceably assemble. They simply can't pass a law prohibiting it.

This thread still fails.
 
You conveniently keep failing to admit that First Amendment rights must be exercised "peaceably", otherwise they do not get protected (the local police have the power, authority & duty to "Keep the Peace.".

What gives any THUG the right to prevent others from exercising their Freedom of Speech?...NOTHING does or should!
You really have no clue how the First Amendment works, do you?
 
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...
You suspect wrong. Try again.
 
Reading comprehension is critical. Congress is not charged with seeing to it that people may peaceably assemble. They simply can't pass a law prohibiting it.

This thread still fails.

I don't care who wrote the laws...Congress, your state or you city.......No one has a right to disturb the peace. Any thug should goto jail for that CRIME.
 
Devil505 said:
So, if it can be proven that the intent of a protest is not to make their views known, but specifically to prevent the words of the other side from being heard, should that be illegal?
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.

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".
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.
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).

I understand what you are trying to say, but the fact is your sentiments are just not correct, legally or logically.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
I have seen far too much shouting down, disrespect, etc, occur at discussions and public meetings...
People do need to learn how to speak, and how to properly conduct themselves..
but then you say this:
earthworm said:
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...
:doh
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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:
Lakryte said:
This "intent" issue you are talking about has absolutely no legal bearing.
If the intent is to stop someone else from talking it doesn't matter. That isn't illegal.

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:
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.
Wrong.no one has a right to commit the crime of disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct...Those are crimes.


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.
People are arrested every day for those crimes if they are deemed to be disturbing the peace. (Last time on this point....I'm not asking you to agree with me, it's a free country)

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).

I understand what you are trying to say, but the fact is your sentiments are just not correct, legally or logically.

The decision for arrest is a totally subjective thing, up to the police officers on the scene. You cannot possibly make a blanket statement saying the peace was not disturbed in the eyes of the police. I've watched some tapes & I would arrest some of thuse protesters in a heartbeat.
 
Last edited:
I have seen far too much shouting down, disrespect, etc, occur at discussions and public meetings...
People do need to learn how to speak, and how to properly conduct themselves..
If they cannot or will not do this , then some good sealing tape across the mouth and a straight jacket are in order.
Both political parties do this and should be ashamed of themselves.
I'll meet you half way on this, if there is true anger, it will come out, that is the nature of protest, but if a party does it out of spite or to show up the other party, then yes they should be ashamed, here is the problem, politics and shame haven't been compatible for years now and if one side does it the other side will retaliate, it's not an excuse, it's human nature.

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...
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 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..
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.
 
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.

It may be a bit off topic but wouldn't it be smarter to take HC out of the "for profit" arena all together?
We don't require our armed force to turn a profit....
We don't have local fire departments put out fires for profit....
We don't arrest criminals for profit...


I say any system that rewards insurance companies (with higher profits) who provide less coverage to sick people is doomed to failure anyway
 
Last edited:
Wrong.no one has a right to commit the crime of disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct...Those are crimes.
Correct. But you have a faulty understanding of what "disturbing the peace" is. Having a heated debate is not disturbing the peace.
People are arrested every day for those crimes if they are deemed to be disturbing the peace. (Last time on this point....I'm not asking you to agree with me, it's a free country)
So then the reporter in the CNN video I showed you should have been arrested, correct? After all, she was yelling and preventing free speech. She was disturbing the peace of the crowd, was she not?

The decision for arrest is a totally subjective thing, up to the police officers on the scene. You cannot possibly make a blanket statement saying the peace was not disturbed in the eyes of the police. I've watched some tapes & I would arrest some of thuse protesters in a heartbeat.
If that is the case then you can't make the claim that the protesters at the town hall meetings were "disturbing the peace" because they weren't arrested.


Are not all protests "disturbing the peace" according to your definition?
 
It may be a bit off topic but wouldn't it be smarter to take HC out of the "for profit" arena all together?
We don't require our armed force to turn a profit....
We don't have local fire departments put out fires for profit....
We don't arrest criminals for profit...
No, I think government HC is a horrid idea, the best fix would be to make real change that brings the prices down such as tort reform and taking the medical school enrollment caps off to allow for more doctors to join the market, that would signifigantly reduce prices and I would bet that the average person could afford about 65% of their health care out of pocket within ten years, then catastrophic coverage from insurance companies could cover the worst case scenario and it's price would also drop because an adjusted risk/payout pool would favor lower premiums, as well, you would probably see a relaxation of underwriting criteria(pre-existing conditions) as things became more affordable.

I say any system that rewards insurance companies who provide less coverage with higher profits is doomed to failure anyway
my take as an agent is that the companies aren't exactly being rewarded, it does look that way because certain opponents use a somewhat dishonest tactic of reporting profit as a dollar figure when they should be reporting profit margins, those don't look favorable when you compare insurance to other industries.
 
Last edited:
Correct. But you have a faulty understanding of what "disturbing the peace" is. Having a heated debate is not disturbing the peace.

OK..Let's look at the law: (my emphasis added)

Disturbing the Peace Law & Legal Definition
Disturbing the Peace Law & Legal Definition

Disturbing the peace is a minor criminal offense that may be charged when someone makes excessive noise, especially in a residential area, such as by operation of any tool, equipment, vehicle, electronic device, set, instrument, television, phonograph, machine or other noise- or sound-producing device. Local laws vary, so they should be consulted for specific requirements in your area.

In some cases, an activity may only disturb a particular individiual, and the remedy would be a private nuisance claim in which injunctive relief and/or damages may be recovered.

The following is an example of a state statute dealing with disturbing the peace:

"Elements of Disturbing the Peace: It shall be unlawful for any person to:

1. Make, continue, maintain or cause to be made or continued any excessive, unnecessary, unreasonable or unusually loud noise or any noise in such manner as to annoy, offend, disturb, injure or endanger the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity residing in the area.
2. Use, operate or permit the use or operation of any electronic device, radio receiving set, television, musical instrument, phonograph or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity inhabiting the area.
3. Congregate because of, participate in or be in any party or gathering of people from which sound emanates of a sufficient volume so as to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity residing in any residential area. No person shall visit or remain within any residential dwelling unit wherein such party or gathering is taking place except persons who have gone there for the sole purpose of abating said disturbance. A police officer may order all persons present in any group or gathering from the dwelling unit to immediately disperse in lieu of being charged under this Section."


Any of these laws are deliberately written to provide police with wide latitude, so to make any blanket statement as to whether or not YOU feel a crime was committed matters little. What matters is the decision of the police on the scene.
(again, from the tapes I've seen, I think arrest would have been in order. Let the courts sort it all out.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom