• 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!

At Claremont McKenna, the left again shuts down free speech.

Anthony60 said:
I think you are mixing up protesting with civil disobedience. That wasn't a protest, it was an unlawful action that they used to get the event shut down. And the problem is that orders were given to not enforce the law and protect people's right to enter the building.
Click to expand...

There are diverging arguments in the thread.

1. Some people think that individuals protesting speech and wanting a person taken off the radio or prevented from giving a presentation is a violation of their rights.

2. Nobody seems to be debating about outright violence.

3. Civil disobedience is not violence. I see nothing wrong with sit ins or blocking entrances by the protestor, and I also recognize it as unlaw. The protestors should be willing to get arrested, and should not resort to violence once the police show up to enforce the law.
 
TheGoverness said:
No, that's not wrong to do that. What's is wrong, is resorting to violent tactics because you (general you) disagree with a particular group's speech.
Click to expand...

There is no debate about that in the thread.
 
Grim17 said:
This time the left and their Black Lives Matter supporters shut down a speech by "The War on Cops" author Heather MacDonald.

The thought of people being exposed to actual facts, which of course threatens their phony narrative, was more than they could stand, so in typical anti-American fashion they did everything they could to shut the woman up.

This revolt against free speech is really getting out of hand.
Click to expand...

You've been complaining like this forever.

Ever the need to feel victimized because you believe it makes the things you believe bulletproof and righteous.
 
SheWolf said:
In that case of Skokie, the neo nazis won the right to march in their neighborhood. They ended up marching somewhere else in the Chicago area once it was all over.
Click to expand...

And? It's just a march. If they aren't destroying property or assaulting people the best strategy would actually be to ignore them. If no one showed up, it would be a really sad parade. Those who do show up and then act out in violence, only gives them the appearance of validation and possible new members.
 
Josie said:
Who gives you the right to take away someone else's rights?



That's your right to protest -- it's not your right to shut them up.
Click to expand...

I am not taking their rights away. I am demonstrating that I want them to exercise their rights somewhere else.
 
Fishking said:
And? It's just a march. If they aren't destroying property or assaulting people the best strategy would actually be to ignore them. If no one showed up, it would be a really sad parade. Those who do show up and then act out in violence, only gives them the appearance of validation and possible new members.
Click to expand...

In the case of Skokie it had a high population of Jewish Holocaust survivors. Many people in Skokie were very frightened and scared, and they were remembering the beginning of the Third Reich. Nazi ideas are very dangerous. We have a responsibility to show nazi and other dangerous ideas resistance. We have a right to demonstrate that to them, and we don't have to welcome to their speech. That is not taking their rights away.

Jewish lawyers fought for the neo nazis rights to march in Skokie, and they won it for the nazis. At the end of the supreme court case, it very much like... well, now you have these rights and up to you what you choose to do with them.
 
SheWolf said:
Counter protesting often disrupts another group's planned protest and demonstration. In the cases I have seen of neo nazis marching in Europe, counter protesters make it impossible for them to march because the neo-nazis are surrounded and outnumbered by counter protestors? That's not a march. That turns into a bunch of protesting against each other. That is stifling the speech and demonstration in a peaceful way.

I have said to you many times, I condone violence, which brings me back to the original point I asked you:

1. We agree violence and threats of violence is unacceptable.

2. Do you think non-violent protesting for the sake of say getting somebody taken off the radio or disrupting/shutting down a presentation, is a violation of free speech?
Click to expand...

I meant to say I don't condone violence.
 
Fishking said:
And? It's just a march. If they aren't destroying property or assaulting people the best strategy would actually be to ignore them. If no one showed up, it would be a really sad parade. Those who do show up and then act out in violence, only gives them the appearance of validation and possible new members.
Click to expand...

And when Hitler first started his political career it was just speeches, and those were just marches too. I don't know how you can deny that the neo nazis picked Skokie to march in for the purpose of intimidating the Holocaust survivors.

People in this thread keep saying "intimidation is wrong." In this case, the one's wanting to rally and march were the intimidators.

As Americans, we should feel a duty to protect our rights, other people's rights, and stand up against dangerous ideas. That also means we recognize the rights nazis, but recognizing their rights does not mean we welcome their marches and treat their speech and rhetoric with "respect."
 
SheWolf said:
I am not taking their rights away. I am demonstrating that I want them to exercise their rights somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Who gives you that power?
 
SheWolf said:
I am not taking their rights away. I am demonstrating that I want them to exercise their rights somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Also -- that was the mindset of white people in the south in the 60s too. "You can drink out of the water fountain -- but you'll have to drink out of that water fountain over there."
 
Josie said:
Who gives you that power?
Click to expand...

What states that I don't have that power?

What states that the Patriot Guard Riders don't have the right to shield and visually block Westboro protests?
 
Josie said:
Also -- that was the mindset of white people in the south in the 60s too. "You can drink out of the water fountain -- but you'll have to drink out of that water fountain over there."
Click to expand...

That's a funny comparison, because I am not saying people aren't equal or speech isn't equal. I am not saying people don't have a right to ever say xyz in public, or that nobody can protest me or my speech. We all have an equal right to protest against another person's speech.
 
SheWolf said:
What states that I don't have that power?
Click to expand...

That's some serious Fascist thinking you've got going there. You have absolutely no right to tell someone they cannot speak in a public arena because we all naturally have the freedom to speak our minds. And proving a negative is something even a rookie debater knows not to ask for.

SheWolf said:
What states that the Patriot Guard Riders don't have the right to shield and visually block Westboro protests?
Click to expand...

They do have the right -- they don't have the right to SILENCE the Westboro protesters.
 
SheWolf said:
That's a funny comparison, because I am not saying people aren't equal or speech isn't equal. I am not saying people don't have a right to ever say xyz in public, or that nobody can protest me or my speech. We all have an equal right to protest against another person's speech.
Click to expand...

The right to protest isn't under debate here. We all agree that we have the right to protest.

You ARE saying that people don't have the right to say XYZ where you don't want them to. So they can speak --- just not HERE or THERE or THERE. But over there --- yeah, way over there -- they can. You have no power to say that, nor does anyone else have the power to do that to you.
 
Josie said:
That's some serious Fascist thinking you've got going there. You have absolutely no right to tell someone they cannot speak in a public arena because we all naturally have the freedom to speak our minds. And proving a negative is something even a rookie debater knows not to ask for.



They do have the right -- they don't have the right to SILENCE the Westboro protesters.
Click to expand...

That's funny you think I am a fascist, because I also said we all have the same rights to protest each other. What do you think the Jewish Holocaust survivors in Skokie should have done? You don't think they should have protested the neo nazis? You think they should have just welcomed them? What makes you think they don't have that right? What makes you even think that that would be a reasonable expectation of Jewish Holocaust survivors in that situation?

And, again, you keep using the word SILENCE. The neo nazis were not SILENCED. They moved their march. The nazis I saw in Europe were seldom SILENCED. They were often disrupted, and shielded by massive counter protestors. And if they didn't hold their marches, it usually was under pressure from the people not wanting it. The community made it loud and clear they would rally. If that caused the neo nazis to quit, who cares. If the Patriot Guard Riders ever ended up causing Westboro to quit because nobody saw their demonstration, so what.

I don't see a violation of anybody's rights.
 
SheWolf said:
That's funny you think I am a fascist, because I also said we all have the same rights to protest each other. What do you think the Jewish Holocaust survivors in Skokie should have done? You don't think they should have protested the neo nazis? You think they should have just welcomed them? What makes you think they don't have that right? What makes you even think that that would be a reasonable expectation of Jewish Holocaust survivors in that situation?
Click to expand...

Are you just not reading what I'm saying? I've never once in this thread -- or my entire life -- said people have no right to protest.

SheWolf said:
And, again, you keep using the word SILENCE. The neo nazis were not SILENCED. They moved their march. The nazis I saw in Europe were seldom SILENCED. They were often disrupted, and shielded by massive counter protestors. And if they didn't hold their marches, it usually was under pressure for the people not wanting it. The community made it loud and clear they would rally. If that caused the neo nazis to quit, who cares. If the Patriot Guard Riders ever ended up causing Westboro to quit because nobody saw their demonstration, so what.

I don't see a violation of anybody's rights.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't.

This thread seems to have run it's course. I'm tired of repeating myself. Have a good night.
 
Josie said:
The right to protest isn't under debate here. We all agree that we have the right to protest.

You ARE saying that people don't have the right to say XYZ where you don't want them to. So they can speak --- just not HERE or THERE or THERE. But over there --- yeah, way over there -- they can. You have no power to say that, nor does anyone else have the power to do that to you.
Click to expand...

With the exceptions of slander, libel, etc., we all have a right to say almost anything anywhere we want. I keep using the case of Skokie saying, nazis have the right to march there. The residents also have the right to protest it. Despite that protest, the nazis have the upper hand to march. They could have marched despite the protest, but because of Skokie's outrage they moved it.

They were not SILENCED, as you keep saying. They still have the right to march, even march in Skokie... but they were not welcome to do it. The residents were not going to "respect" their speech, but their rights were not removed. They were not SILENCED.

Yes, I would do the same thing. I would say, "Hell no, I don't want you nazis marching in my street. I am protesting to tell you that you are not welcome here."

What is wrong with that?
 
Josie said:
Are you just not reading what I'm saying? I've never once in this thread -- or my entire life -- said people have no right to protest.



Of course you don't.

This thread seems to have run it's course. I'm tired of repeating myself. Have a good night.
Click to expand...

Well you seem to think it's wrong to protest if the protest is intended to say, "I don't want you saying that right here... in my neighborhood."
 
Josie said:
Are you just not reading what I'm saying? I've never once in this thread -- or my entire life -- said people have no right to protest.



Of course you don't.

This thread seems to have run it's course. I'm tired of repeating myself. Have a good night.
Click to expand...

I am sorry you want to quit, because I think you're not communicating something clearly.
 
SheWolf said:
With the exceptions of slander, libel, etc., we all have a right to say almost anything anywhere we want. I keep using the case of Skokie saying, nazis have the right to march there. The residents also have the right to protest it. Despite that protest, the nazis have the upper hand to march. They could have marched despite the protest, but because of Skokie's outrage they moved it.

They were not SILENCED, as you keep saying. They still have the right to march, even march in Skokie... but they were not welcome to do it. The residents were not going to "respect" their speech, but their rights were not removed. They were not SILENCED.

Yes, I would do the same thing. I would say, "Hell no, I don't want you nazis marching in my street. I am protesting to tell you that you are not welcome here."

What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

When snowflakes endanger speakers they don't like, burn public property and put their own professors in the hospital they are not engaging in "free speech"

They are indeed imitating the Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany
 
SheWolf said:
The problem is that you guys a throwing a fit because an event was protested and eventually canceled.

This may sound similar to what I wrote to somebody else, but this is the break down.

1. The protestors have a right to protest.

2. I don't see a problem with them blocking the entrance as a principle, because it, in and of itself, is not using violence. Much like sit ins during the civil rights movement, people would essentially block the normal course of business by taking seats at tables they were forbidden to occupy. They were legally trespassing by doing so. Cops were called and they would be forcibly removed, and cops were using way too much violence during the civil rights movement.

3. Police were present at this protest, but they did not remove the protestors.

4. The event was canceled as a result of the protest.

If you want me to say these protestors were being dicks, I would agree with that. I am not going to say they violated the woman's rights, because they didn't. And that's why I keep telling you that you are confusing your rights with your privileges. The author has a right to write a book about whatever her heart desires. She does not have a right to give a presentation or speech anywhere her heart desires. Nobody is obligated or required to give your free speech a platform, and anybody can protest anything you say.
Click to expand...

Usually the event is actually cancelled because of the fear of violence that the venue doesn't feel comfortable with securing. If protesters cause an event to be cancelled due to a security threat then that is using a threat of violence as a means of stopping free speech. Venues don't cancel events because there are a bunch of people peacefully holding up signs.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That's not how the 1st amendment works, your fellow citizens have every right to protest you. Considering she's on live national TV I don't know how you can possibly pretend she's being silenced. Frankly, someone categorically stupid enough to go around announcing that there is no racial bias in our justice system isn't to be taken seriously in the first place.



Oh? And what are those rock-hard statistics that show racism is dead in America and our justice system works equally well for all races? Please present it so we can see it.




Wait, so right after you declare this protest as "the left", you admit that there are no leaders from the left that organized this? Why haven't GOP leaders actively involved themselves in KKK matters to better control their supporters? If I didn't know better, I'd say that the powers that be on the right and in the GOP are quite content with the use of violence to stifle minorities they disagree with.
Click to expand...

I think the issues being exposed by the folks who routinely silence the speakers on US Campuses is not their understanding of First Amendment rights but is rather their refusal to hear opinions that differ from their own.

Bigotry and education seem to be mutually exclusive according to the ideas touted by our Universities.

However, the product of the Universities, students, after being subjected to the tender mercies of the faculty instruction, have become close minded, bigoted, ideologues intolerant of any idea strange to them.

Stalin would smile. Any person in favor of thought control would smile as well. "Unapproved thoughts" will not be tolerated.
 
code1211 said:
I think the issues being exposed by the folks who routinely silence the speakers on US Campuses is not their understanding of First Amendment rights but is rather their refusal to hear opinions that differ from their own.

Bigotry and education seem to be mutually exclusive according to the ideas touted by our Universities.

However, the product of the Universities, students, after being subjected to the tender mercies of the faculty instruction, have become close minded, bigoted, ideologues intolerant of any idea strange to them.

Stalin would smile. Any person in favor of thought control would smile as well. "Unapproved thoughts" will not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

tl;dr "**** higher education, it's just a liberal conspiracy to brainwash our children!"
 
Moderate Right said:
Usually the event is actually cancelled because of the fear of violence that the venue doesn't feel comfortable with securing. If protesters cause an event to be cancelled due to a security threat then that is using a threat of violence as a means of stopping free speech. Venues don't cancel events because there are a bunch of people peacefully holding up signs.
Click to expand...

I have also said I don't condone violence, so there is no debate on that side of the issue. I am debating the point that you guys are calling it a violation of somebody else's rights/free speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom