• 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!

Is Attending Speech which Advocates the Overthrow of Government Protected Speech?

Is Attending Speech wich Advocates the Overthrow of the Government Protected Speech?


  • Total voters
    15

ADG

Active member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
399
Reaction score
155
Location
Purple Mountains Majesty
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
On Sean Hannity's radio program -- one week after commendably leading opposition to the Patriot Act on civil liberties grounds -- Sen. Rand Paul is now advocating the arrest of people who "attend radical political speeches."

After claiming to be against racial and religious profiling, Paul said: "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison."

Is Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech be a violation of the First Amendment?
 
Free speech includes unpopular speech.
 
On Sean Hannity's radio program -- one week after commendably leading opposition to the Patriot Act on civil liberties grounds -- Sen. Rand Paul is now advocating the arrest of people who "attend radical political speeches."

After claiming to be against racial and religious profiling, Paul said: "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison."

Is Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech be a violation of the First Amendment?

No idea regarding content...did he mean the speachgoers or that the person advocating for the violent overthrow of the country should be sent to prison? Sometimes people tend to ramble on.
 
He's just trying to get people to stop going to Palin rallies.
 
No idea regarding content...did he mean the speachgoers or that the person advocating for the violent overthrow of the country should be sent to prison? Sometimes people tend to ramble on.

He meant the attendees.
 
Paul said: "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison."

Is Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech be a violation of the First Amendment?

Is Attending Speech wich Advocates the Overthrow of the Government Protected Speech?
You state in your question that attending is equivalent to speech. It is not. And, R. Paul is only stating in your quote of him that attending is illegal. Therefore it’s not a crime to attend with your mouth shut. Also, nothing about violent over through is in your question, but you write about R. Paul stating violent over through. Which is it?
 
He meant the attendees.

Then he is a douchebag. I have to say tho...Rand Paul often comes across as the wealthy son of a famous Libertarian that often wades into conversations trying to sound as Libertariany as he knows how to. Its all about the meal ticket. I think he makes up 80% of the crap he says in the moment.
 
I believe speech against the government is the most fundamental and protected of all speech.
 
I believe speech against the government is the most fundamental and protected of all speech.

Advocating for the violent overthrow of a government is rather different than 'speaking out against the government' wouldnt you say? While attendance of such a meeting shouldnt be criminal, I can certtainly see promotion of the idea as worthy of a one way ticket to North Korea.
 
Advocating for the violent overthrow of a government is rather different than 'speaking out against the government' wouldnt you say? While attendance of such a meeting shouldnt be criminal, I can certtainly see promotion of the idea as worthy of a one way ticket to North Korea.

The ability to revolt against the government, to replace it with a new one, remains proper and just tool of the People should a government ever not serve it's purpose to support and proliferate our rights and liberties. Violent overthrow of the government is the ultimate check the People have on the government.
 
Is Attending Speech wich Advocates the Overthrow of the Government Protected Speech?
You state in your question that attending is equivalent to speech. It is not. And, R. Paul is only stating in your quote of him that attending is illegal. Therefore it’s not a crime to attend with your mouth shut. Also, nothing about violent over through is in your question, but you write about R. Paul stating violent over through. Which is it?

Violent overthrow.

So then the next question you asked: Is the person who is speaking, and advocating about overthrowing the government, protected by the First Amendment?
 
Advocating for the violent overthrow of a government is rather different than 'speaking out against the government' wouldnt you say? While attendance of such a meeting shouldnt be criminal, I can certtainly see promotion of the idea as worthy of a one way ticket to North Korea.

So you believe that advocating for the violent overthrow of a government is not protected by the First Amendment?
 
On Sean Hannity's radio program -- one week after commendably leading opposition to the Patriot Act on civil liberties grounds -- Sen. Rand Paul is now advocating the arrest of people who "attend radical political speeches."

After claiming to be against racial and religious profiling, Paul said: "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison."

Is Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech be a violation of the First Amendment?

Well no - I don't think attending reflects your beliefs and values.

I don't suport certain right or left agendas but I'll listen to them discuss it to understand *what* they're believing and feeling on the issues. . . how else is someone suppose to know what the others are talking about if they don't hear it first hand (via video - in person - etc)
 
I'm confused on this. I thought it was illegal to incite a riot or violence? Wouldn't making a speech about violently overthrowing the government fall into that?

Regarding the attendees being at fault, no.
 
On Sean Hannity's radio program -- one week after commendably leading opposition to the Patriot Act on civil liberties grounds -- Sen. Rand Paul is now advocating the arrest of people who "attend radical political speeches."

After claiming to be against racial and religious profiling, Paul said: "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison."

Is Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech be a violation of the First Amendment?

Speech advocating the violent overthrow of government is protected speech.

What isn't protected is conspiracy to commit or overt acts of violence to overthrow the government.

Pretty simple issue to me.
 
I'm confused on this. I thought it was illegal to incite a riot or violence? Wouldn't making a speech about violently overthrowing the government fall into that?

Regarding the attendees being at fault, no.

Not necessarily.

There's a difference between a Senate candidate suggesting we use "second amendment solutions" and going to the park and recruiting people to throw molotov cocktails at the federal building for the lulz. The latter is more immediate and may be less political than the former.
 
Well no - I don't think attending reflects your beliefs and values.

I don't suport certain right or left agendas but I'll listen to them discuss it to understand *what* they're believing and feeling on the issues. . . how else is someone suppose to know what the others are talking about if they don't hear it first hand (via video - in person - etc)

Excellent point right here. There is a definite difference between saying violent speeches and listening to violent speeches.
 
I'm confused on this. I thought it was illegal to incite a riot or violence? Wouldn't making a speech about violently overthrowing the government fall into that?

Regarding the attendees being at fault, no.

I'm not entirely a fan of the "incite to riot or violence" thing as it's defined by the State and they can use it however they want. But within that context I would say that if it's a rally and people are talking about the downfall of the government, it's inattention to our rights and needs, and the necessity to do away with it; that's probably fine so long as that's it. If it were a group and everyone is armed and they're talking about "let's go get those bastards!" sort of thing, I can see that falling more into "incite a riot or violence".
 
I'm not entirely a fan of the "incite to riot or violence" thing as it's defined by the State and they can use it however they want. But within that context I would say that if it's a rally and people are talking about the downfall of the government, it's inattention to our rights and needs, and the necessity to do away with it; that's probably fine so long as that's it. If it were a group and everyone is armed and they're talking about "let's go get those bastards!" sort of thing, I can see that falling more into "incite a riot or violence".

Yeah, you have to actually incite some violence for this to kick in. No violence, no problem.
 
The ability to revolt against the government, to replace it with a new one, remains proper and just tool of the People should a government ever not serve it's purpose to support and proliferate our rights and liberties. Violent overthrow of the government is the ultimate check the People have on the government.

Violent overthrow of the government is treason and people that attempt it should be eliminated.
 
So you believe that advocating for the violent overthrow of a government is not protected by the First Amendment?

I believe advocating for the violent overthrow of the government should be treated as treasonous and the perpetrators should be put down with extreme prejudice...yes.
 
On Sean Hannity's radio program -- one week after commendably leading opposition to the Patriot Act on civil liberties grounds -- Sen. Rand Paul is now advocating the arrest of people who "attend radical political speeches."

After claiming to be against racial and religious profiling, Paul said: "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison."

Is Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech be a violation of the First Amendment?

College campuses would be empty. People who suggest things like this are intellectually deficient and can't understand the importance of ideas, regardless of whether or not one supports those ideas. There is something to be learned from every idea no matter how extreme - it's an uneducated and silly suggestion.
 
I believe advocating for the violent overthrow of the government should be treated as treasonous and the perpetrators should be put down with extreme prejudice...yes.
A nation is more than a government, it's an idea and sometimes the government becomes a direct threat to that idea. The right to talk about overthrowing the government is one of the things that makes government turning into a severe threat difficult because it ensures that those in government understand that the people hold the power.
 
A nation is more than a government, it's an idea and sometimes the government becomes a direct threat to that idea. The right to talk about overthrowing the government is one of the things that makes government turning into a severe threat difficult because it ensures that those in government understand that the people hold the power.

Threatening to violently overthrow a government or inciting others to do so is treasonous. The founding fathers of this country successfully did it and created a free country. But dont think it didnt come with a cost. Anyone that threatens to do so to this country today ought to be met with the same resistance. And even when I disagree with the actions of my government, I'll gladly be there to fire the first shot. Thats not bravado or internet tough-guyism...Im just sayin. We have a government, laws, a consitution. You want to violently overthrow our government? Bring a lunchpail and a helmet.

You can advocate for change all you want. World of difference between advocating for change and being a proponent of violent rebellion.
 
Threatening to violently overthrow a government or inciting others to do so is treasonous. The founding fathers of this country successfully did it and created a free country. But dont think it didnt come with a cost. Anyone that threatens to do so to this country today ought to be met with the same resistance. And even when I disagree with the actions of my government, I'll gladly be there to fire the first shot. Thats not bravado or internet tough-guyism...Im just sayin. We have a government, laws, a consitution. You want to violently overthrow our government? Bring a lunchpail and a helmet.

You can advocate for change all you want. World of difference between advocating for change and being a proponent of violent rebellion.

Awesome. When people try to overthrow the government, then everything you just said applies. Unfortunately, it does not and should not ever apply to talking about it and especially attending a talk about it. Once our government starts punishing people for talking about and listening to ideas, we have a problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom