• 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!

Trump calls Black Lives Matter a 'symbol of hate' as he digs in on race

Xilnik said:
You do realize there are limitations to the first amendment imposed by other laws and amendments? Freedom of speech, as an example, does not include the right to incite violence. It seems like you are the one who might want to read through our constitution as well as state laws to understand how our laws and rights really work, especially treaties protecting indigenous people's rights within this country.
Click to expand...

You do realize that there were no limitations to the photographer's right to film and record events in a public place, right? Everyone has that right, despite your attempts to violate their First Amendment rights. Something I have come to expect from the fascist left. After all, ANTIFA = ANTI First Amendment. Aren't you missing a terrorist meeting?
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
We can see the clip. The filmmaker was not inciting violence.
Click to expand...

Wow. :shock: I was providing an example of one way in which the first amendment has limitations. I was not saying it related to the video in any way. It was a separate example to illustrate my point.
 
Xilnik said:
Wow. :shock: I was providing an example of one way in which the first amendment has limitations. I was not saying it related to the video in any way. It was a separate example to illustrate my point.
Click to expand...
Well then it was an inappropriate point which fit nowhere.
 
Glitch said:
BLM is a domestic terrorist organization that needs to be put down with force. Your bigotry is noted, and expected from the mentally-deranged left.
Click to expand...
Skin color always plays a major role in their beliefs and actions.
 
Glitch said:
You do realize that there were no limitations to the photographer's right to film and record events in a public place, right? Everyone has that right, despite your attempts to violate their First Amendment rights. Something I have come to expect from the fascist left. After all, ANTIFA = ANTI First Amendment. Aren't you missing a terrorist meeting?
Click to expand...

Fred C Dobbs II said:
Well then it was an inappropriate point which fit nowhere.
Click to expand...

It is inappropriate to point out that the laws within our nation have evolved and changed our rights protected under the first amendment after someone said that the first amendment protects a person's rights to film without limitation?

Since you decided to get nitpicky, it would have been more suitable to address actual laws around rights to film. Does the first amendment also protect filming people on a nude beach? Does it protect filming naked children?
 
Paradoxical said:
Are you a Marxist?
Click to expand...

I hate commies. OTOH, idiots throwing around labels when they have no clue what they actually mean does nothing but continue to pollute the political debate.
 
Xilnik said:
It is inappropriate to point out that the laws within our nation have evolved and changed our rights protected under the first amendment after someone said that the first amendment protects a person's rights to film without limitation?

Since you decided to get nitpicky, it would have been more suitable to address actual laws around rights to film. Does the first amendment also protect filming people on a nude beach? Does it protect filming naked children?
Click to expand...

You truly have no clue do you? The First Amendment has never changed since the day it was ratified 229 years ago. The First Amendment protects recording anything that would normally have been visible or heard from any public vantage point. That includes public nude beaches, public assembly meetings, or anywhere else in public the photographer wishes to record.
 
Jonsa said:
only paranoids and fascists are worried about a marxist take over of america. REasonable people understand how these bull**** labels are simply shorthand for generating fear division and hatred. Good job.
Click to expand...

You are aware that Marxists are the fascists, right? Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, was a devote socialist Marxist.
 
Glitch said:
You truly have no clue do you? The First Amendment has never changed since the day it was ratified 229 years ago. The First Amendment protects recording anything that would normally have been visible or heard from any public vantage point. That includes public nude beaches, public assembly meetings, or anywhere else in public the photographer wishes to record.
Click to expand...

Projecting much about me not having a clue?

S.1301 - Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004
Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual's consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Defines a "private area" as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.)

Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.
Click to expand...

S.1301 - 108th Congress (2003-2004): Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

I will say that you qualified "public nude beach" and I was referring to a private nude beach, so I will grant you that one.
 
Last edited:
Xilnik said:
Projecting much about me not having a clue?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I can definitely tell that you are completely clueless.

Xilnik said:
S.1301 - 108th Congress (2003-2004): Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

I will say that you qualified "public nude beach" and I was referring to a private nude beach, so I will grant you that one.
Click to expand...

As evidence by the above. The law only pertains when there is an expectation of privacy. If someone decides to stand in front of an open window and expose themselves, then there is no expectation of privacy and if someone happens to photograph that event it does not violate the law. Since you are utterly clueless, I will point out that the law does not apply to anyone photographing or recording a public assembly meeting.
 
bomberfox said:
This is what people refuse to understand when they try to act like the civil rights movement just asked nicely. Rioting as rather unfortunate as they are is generally the last ditch effort of the unheard.
Click to expand...

The main difference I see between the demonstrations of the Civil Rights era and the current protests is that the former generally had well defined goals that even bigoted Americans could understand. The current protests have no clear goals, and so anything positive that happens in their wake can't be fairly attributed to them.
 
Deuce said:
Oh come on. Don't pretend you don't already know. You do know, and you've been giving them a pass for years. You know the people wearing swastikas on their arm voted Trump. You know the people in klan hoods voted Trump. If you can't be honest, I've no particular reason to discuss anything with you.
Click to expand...

I hear they don't like him anymore, though. 'cause he's been too friendly with the Jews. So if Trump wins next time round, it may be w/o white supremacy help.
 
CaughtInThe said:
oh, i think at this point we get it. you're determined to convince people that White Supremacist supporters and sympathizers don't exist. hey, we also even know why it's your game.

;)
Click to expand...

Yum, yum, what vapid and meaningless accusations. It's like munching on marshmallows!
 
Glitch said:
Not at all. I can definitely tell that you are completely clueless.

As evidence by the above. The law only pertains when there is an expectation of privacy. If someone decides to stand in front of an open window and expose themselves, then there is no expectation of privacy and if someone happens to photograph that event it does not violate the law. Since you are utterly clueless, I will point out that the law does not apply to anyone photographing or recording a public assembly meeting.
Click to expand...
There was no meeting in this case, so that part of your argument is flawed. The meeting was canceled and the people asked to leave, which they refused to do and chose to protest instead. Part of their protest included a sacred tradition, possibly a sacred ceremony.

The video was filmed in California. There is a law in California that applies to this situation:
§ 5097.9: Non-interference with Native American religious expression
Establishes that public agencies, or private entities using, occupying or operating on public property under public permit, shall not interfere with free expression or exercise of Native American religion and shall not cause severe or irreparable damage to Native American sacred sites, except under special determined circumstances of public interest and necessity.
Click to expand...
State Laws and Codes – California Native American Heritage Commission
 
Glitch said:
You are aware that Marxists are the fascists, right? Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, was a devote socialist Marxist.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
 
Court Jester said:
Click to expand...


Xilnik said:
You are aware how disrespectful it is to film sacred ceremony, right? The guy could have kept the camera recording and turned it to the floor and put his finger over the microphone. If conflict happened, his excuse to continue filming, he would have been able to quickly release the microphone and move the camera back to start filming again.
Click to expand...

OH BS!!!!

The BLM idiots were having their so called "sacred ceremony" in a PUBLIC PLACE, a Torrance City Council meeting where the PUBLIC is allowed to go and listen, speak, and FILM if they choose to. If the BLM idiots wanted their so called "scared ceremony" to be private, then have it inside their own BLM "church" building if they have one.

The video above is just one example of the CRAZY and entitled BLM organization and their followers. The cameraman is a guy who films the police to make sure the police don't do anything wrong. But in this example he caught the BLM idiots doing the threatening behavior.


Xilnik said:
That video does not show hypocrisy; what it shows is someone who is ignorant of others' beliefs and religion while citing his right to film.
Click to expand...

Hey, that is NOT how it works. The right to the first amendment isn't just reserved for the BLM loons when they want to act up and cause trouble, the public has every right to film them acting like loons....or whatever they claim is their "sacred ceremony" especially while in a public place.

So BLM is now a religion???? Where is their church?



Xilnik said:
That is twice now that you have posted something to me without understanding other people's beliefs.
Click to expand...

Actually I do understand BLM's beliefs--- as anyone paying attention should already be aware of. Chants to kill police, chants to tear down society, LIES being told (hands up don't shoot) which have resulted in cites burned, and acting as a 'cover' for looters and arsonists. Yeah, anyone paying attention should already know what the BLM organization believes in. What is left then is for the misinformed to be made aware that while saying African-American lives matter------ OF COURSE they matter. But attaching that to the BLM organization is a fool's errand, an organization which needs to be exposed for their radical Marxists and anarchists elements and views.

Had I been the cameraman in the above video I would have walked right over to the BLM group in the city council meeting and continued to film them. They could have whined all they wanted to, I would have exposed their "sacred ceremony" for all to see.
 
Court Jester said:
OH BS!!!!

The BLM idiots were having their so called "sacred ceremony" in a PUBLIC PLACE, a Torrance City Council meeting where the PUBLIC is allowed to go and listen, speak, and FILM if they choose to. If the BLM idiots wanted their so called "scared ceremony" to be private, then have it inside their own BLM "church" building if they have one.

The video above is just one example of the CRAZY and entitled BLM organization and their followers. The cameraman is a guy who films the police to make sure the police don't do anything wrong. But in this example he caught the BLM idiots doing the threatening behavior.




Hey, that is NOT how it works. The right to the first amendment isn't just reserved for the BLM loons when they want to act up and cause trouble, the public has every right to film them acting like loons....or whatever they claim is their "sacred ceremony" especially while in a public place.

So BLM is now a religion???? Where is their church?





Actually I do understand BLM's beliefs--- as anyone paying attention should already be aware of. Chants to kill police, chants to tear down society, LIES being told (hands up don't shoot) which have resulted in cites burned, and acting as a 'cover' for looters and arsonists. Yeah, anyone paying attention should already know what the BLM organization believes in. What is left then is for the misinformed to be made aware that while saying African-American lives matter------ OF COURSE they matter. But attaching that to the BLM organization is a fool's errand, an organization which needs to be exposed for their radical Marxists and anarchists elements and views.

Had I been the cameraman in the above video I would have walked right over to the BLM group in the city council meeting and continued to film them. They could have whined all they wanted to, I would have exposed their "sacred ceremony" for all to see.
Click to expand...

I see that you are having difficulty separating BLM from the people in the video. As usual, people assume everyone who supports a movement is the same with the same beliefs and same methods. You do not recognize the people leading the protest? You cannot understand why they do not want their traditions misrepresented or exploited? Did it occur to you that this video does that very thing?
 
Jonsa said:
I hate commies. OTOH, idiots throwing around labels when they have no clue what they actually mean does nothing but continue to pollute the political debate.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you were a Marxist. I asked you if you were.
 
Xilnik said:
There was no meeting in this case, so that part of your argument is flawed. The meeting was canceled and the people asked to leave, which they refused to do and chose to protest instead. Part of their protest included a sacred tradition, possibly a sacred ceremony.

The video was filmed in California. There is a law in California that applies to this situation:

State Laws and Codes – California Native American Heritage Commission
Click to expand...

They are in a public assembly meeting room, it is not private by any means, and photographing and recording cannot be construed as interfering. You should really try getting an education because you leftist indoctrination is not serving you well. Furthermore, continuing to remain after given a lawful order to vacate the premises is a violation of the law. Which means that it could not have been a protest. All protests are peaceful and lawful. If it is anything else then it is a riot, and if they are violating the law for the purpose of attempting to coerce or intimidate government into changing or adopting a policy, then they have become terrorists under 18 U.S. Code § 2331. The last time I checked the First Amendment does not protect acts of terrorism.
 
Ouroboros said:
The main difference I see between the demonstrations of the Civil Rights era and the current protests is that the former generally had well defined goals that even bigoted Americans could understand. The current protests have no clear goals, and so anything positive that happens in their wake can't be fairly attributed to them.
Click to expand...

The main difference I see, and I was there during the 1960s, is the Martin Luther King Jr.'s protest marches were all peaceful and law-abiding. Contrast that with these terrorist scum who get their jollies by setting COPs on fire, and beating people within an inch of their life because they happen to disagree with anti-American leftist filth. The protest marches of the 1960s was exactly what the First Amendment was suppose to protect. Only the mentally-deranged left could possibly construe that the violent criminal acts by these BLM and ANTIFA terrorists are somehow "protests" and therefore protected by the US Constitution. Which should tell you the depth of their mental derangement. Leftists are violently insane, and should be treated accordingly.
 
Glitch said:
They are in a public assembly meeting room, it is not private by any means, and photographing and recording cannot be construed as interfering.
Click to expand...
Do you know what a private entity within a public setting means?

It could be construed as interfering. The people of that nation did not give permission for the filmmaker to participate or record their traditions. The filmmaker disrespecting their wishes and their beliefs can be argued as interference in their religion. I do wonder if the people in that video know about the video and how it is being used.

Glitch said:
You should really try getting an education because you leftist indoctrination is not serving you well. Furthermore, continuing to remain after given a lawful order to vacate the premises is a violation of the law. Which means that it could not have been a protest. All protests are peaceful and lawful. If it is anything else then it is a riot, and if they are violating the law for the purpose of attempting to coerce or intimidate government into changing or adopting a policy, then they have become terrorists under 18 U.S. Code § 2331. The last time I checked the First Amendment does not protect acts of terrorism.
Click to expand...

They were not given an order to vacate the premises. They were requested to clear the room. The mayor had cancelled the meeting due to several outbursts, and the group was given the option to clear the room or wait to see if the mayor would come out to end the meeting. Technically, I suppose you could argue that the meeting was still in place since the mayor had not yet come out to end it, but there was also the statement that the meeting had been cancelled already, so it is a bit ambiguous the status of the meeting itself.
 
Last edited:
Xilnik said:
It could be construed as interfering. The people of that nation did not give permission for the filmmaker to participate or record their traditions. The filmmaker disrespecting their wishes and their beliefs can be argued as interference in their religion. I do wonder if the people in that video know about the video and how it is being used.
Click to expand...
No, it cannot. Nobody gives a damn about their wishes. As long as they remain in a public place they can be legally recorded. That goes for anyone preaching in the streets as well. Just because it is being claimed to be a religious "ceremony" doesn't negate the right of the individual to record events in public areas. If they didn't want it recorded they are required to take it somewhere where there is an expectation of privacy. As it states in the law you referenced. Did you even bother to read what you posted?

Xilnik said:
They were not given order to vacate the premises. They were requested to clear the room. The mayor had cancelled the meeting due to several outbursts, and the group was given the option to clear the room or wait to see if the mayor would come out to end the meeting. Technically, I suppose you could argue that the meeting was still in place since the mayor had not yet come out to end it, but there was also the statement that the meeting had been cancelled already, so it is a bit ambiguous the status of the meeting itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were given a lawful order to vacate, as the meeting was declared to be at an end. It is on the video. And you wonder why people think you are clueless? Amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom