• 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
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.

& that's exactly what Nixon did. (I'll attach a link when I have more time)
 
Fine, I'll read it, but the Watergate thing is a different matter.

Why is it different? (a political party/Party Leader deliberately abusing it's power for petty political advantage is wrong no matter what)

Edit: Getting off topic here.
 
Last edited:
Why is it different? (a political party/Party Leader deliberately abusing it's power for petty political advantage is wrong no matter what)

Edit: Getting off topic here.
Not different in the corruption sense, but different to the original point of government plants as a counterprotest.
 
No. If at can be proven that the protesters are doing nothing more than disrupting the public peace, then those protesters can be removed.

Since the only legal way the police can remove you is if you're violating a law. Your above answer should read YES

Here's my original question:
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?
 
Last edited:
Since the only legal way the police can remove you is if you're violating a law. Your above answer should read YES

Here's my original question:
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?
I'll go with no, even though it would be underhanded and less than ethical, people are still seeking redress of grievances, if they break the plane of protection and get physically violent, that is a different matter.
 
I'll go with no, even though it would be underhanded and less than ethical, people are still seeking redress of grievances, if they break the plane of protection and get physically violent, that is a different matter.

So, if you agree that the police should remove these loudmouth protesters, but they (protesters) have violated no law, what justification is there for the police action??? (your answer is inconsistent)
 
Last edited:
So, if you agree that the police should remove these loudmouth protesters, but they (protesters) have violated no law, what justification is there for the police action??? (your answer is inconsistent)
I may have phrased badly. Unless there is physical violence, then there should be no abridgement of free speech on public property, according to the first amendment. Even if the protesters are loud and vocally unruly, that is completely protected. If someone calls for violence or endangers the public with their speech, which is based on imminent threat and clear and present danger standards, then a law has been broken. Freedom of speech is a bitch like that, if we don't like the message, it still must be protected at all costs, unless it clearly and concisely endagers others.
 
There is a revolution in this country that has been brewing for some time now. While I hate to see the violence and I in no way condone it, I do understand it. People are fed up with government. They are fed up with bailouts, bills not being read, czars who have no accountability to the people, government intrusion, stimulus to fund more welfare programs and now universal health care (the straw that will break the back IMO). There has to be a better way than the violence that we are seeing, but we are seeing it from both sides. We are also seeing threats coming out of the WH that I don't think we've ever seen in the history of this country. We are seeing chaos, anarchy and the frustration boiling over in average everyday Americans.

I fear this is just the beginning. I believe there will be more violence before this all settles down. Again, I do not condone it in any way, but I understand it. People are frustrated that their country is being taken from them at the hands of our present government, but it didn't start with the election of Obama, this has been brewing for a long time. I welcome any revolution that will "right the ship" so to speak in terms of returning to the principles of our founding fathers and the Constitution which they wrote for a reason. I do not want to see a violent revolution, it sickens me. I do want to see government reigned in though because it is completely and totally out of control. If these protests, preceded by the Tea Parties, aren't a wake up call to our government, what will it take to make them see the light? People from all political viewpoints are participating in this, this isn't "just the right" as the media and many here on this board will have you believe.
 
There is a revolution in this country that has been brewing for some time now. While I hate to see the violence and I in no way condone it, I do understand it. People are fed up with government. They are fed up with bailouts, bills not being read, czars who have no accountability to the people, government intrusion, stimulus to fund more welfare programs and now universal health care (the straw that will break the back IMO). There has to be a better way than the violence that we are seeing, but we are seeing it from both sides. We are also seeing threats coming out of the WH that I don't think we've ever seen in the history of this country. We are seeing chaos, anarchy and the frustration boiling over in average everyday Americans.

I fear this is just the beginning. I believe there will be more violence before this all settles down. Again, I do not condone it in any way, but I understand it. People are frustrated that their country is being taken from them at the hands of our present government, but it didn't start with the election of Obama, this has been brewing for a long time. I welcome any revolution that will "right the ship" so to speak in terms of returning to the principles of our founding fathers and the Constitution which they wrote for a reason. I do not want to see a violent revolution, it sickens me. I do want to see government reigned in though because it is completely and totally out of control. If these protests, preceded by the Tea Parties, aren't a wake up call to our government, what will it take to make them see the light? People from all political viewpoints are participating in this, this isn't "just the right" as the media and many here on this board will have you believe.







The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

-Thomas Jefferson
 
I may have phrased badly. Unless there is physical violence, then there should be no abridgement of free speech on public property, according to the first amendment. Even if the protesters are loud and vocally unruly, that is completely protected. If someone calls for violence or endangers the public with their speech, which is based on imminent threat and clear and present danger standards, then a law has been broken. Freedom of speech is a bitch like that, if we don't like the message, it still must be protected at all costs, unless it clearly and concisely endagers others.

So the police can only stop or arrest people for being disorderly if they commit acts of physical violence?
How about "Disturbing the peace"?...That need violence as well?;)
 
So the police can only stop or arrest people for being disorderly if they commit acts of physical violence?
How about "Disturbing the peace"?...That need violence as well?;)




So you supported Gates being arrested?
 
So the police can only stop or arrest people for being disorderly if they commit acts of physical violence?
How about "Disturbing the peace"?...That need violence as well?;)
Disturbing the peace is mainly a complaint thing, I would hate to be the representative making the papers for filing that complaint though, the p.r. hit would be attrocious. Even then, disturbing the peace could potentially come from disobeying an officer, let's say they were trying to get the crowd under control and asked a shouter to calm down, then the guy gave him a "**** you", yeah, that could be a disturbing the peace, or disobeying a lawful order, but again, that line is pretty thin and it's a officer's discretion issue.
 
Disturbing the peace is mainly a complaint thing, I would hate to be the representative making the papers for filing that complaint though, the p.r. hit would be attrocious. Even then, disturbing the peace could potentially come from disobeying an officer, let's say they were trying to get the crowd under control and asked a shouter to calm down, then the guy gave him a "**** you", yeah, that could be a disturbing the peace, or disobeying a lawful order, but again, that line is pretty thin and it's a officer's discretion issue.

A "complaint thing"??? Disturbing the peace is a crime allowing for the arrest & incarceration of the offender, right?
 
A "complaint thing"??? Disturbing the peace is a crime allowing for the arrest & incarceration of the offender, right?

It is a misdemeanor that can be ticketed in most states. :roll:
 
A "complaint thing"??? Disturbing the peace is a crime allowing for the arrest & incarceration of the offender, right?
Correct, but the charges have to be filed and that's the tricky part, do officers want to risk a loud situation becoming a riot by making a hasty move, or does the speaker want to elevate things by bringing up the complaint and thus engaging the officers to file, etc. It's kind of like the bar blocks in my city, there are literally hundreds of disturbing the peace possibilities on any given Saturday night, but the crowds are loud, and alcohol is involved, all it would take is for some idiots to take exception to an officer starting the process to make the crowd unruly, so officers usually wait until someone is an immenent threat or when someone needs to be removed before any arrests are made.
 
It is a misdemeanor that can be ticketed in most states. :roll:


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?
 
What crimes did these union thugs commit.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kxaGfClPws"]YouTube - Kathy Castor - Healthcare Town Hall Meeting in Tampa - 8/6[/ame]


Note how Dev will ignore this in order to maintain his weak argument.
 
What crimes did these union thugs commit.


YouTube - Kathy Castor - Healthcare Town Hall Meeting in Tampa - 8/6


Note how Dev will ignore this in order to maintain his weak argument.

Since this is on topic, I'll respond:

What ever side is disturbing the peace (& thus preventing free speech) should be removed by the police so that other citizens can hear the words of their elected officials.
If it can be proven that the loud protests are part of a conspiracy to prevent First Amendment rights from being exercised, further (more serious) criminal charges may be warranted.

I answered your question, but will carefully screen any future questions you ask for their intelligence (my decision alone) & their relevance to the topic.
 
Since this is on topic, I'll respond:

What ever side is disturbing the peace (& thus preventing free speech) should be removed by the police so that other citizens can hear the words of their elected officials.
If it can be proven that the loud protests are part of a conspiracy to prevent First Amendment rights from being exercised, further (more serious) criminal charges may be warranted.

I answered your question, but will carefully screen any future questions you ask for their intelligence (my decision alone) & their relevance to the topic.




How did you answer my question?


What do you think of the union thugs assaulting a protestor?


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


it reeks of your hyper-partisan hackery....
 
Ok, I understand the protest you mention are organized by a vast Top-Down Conspiracy just like the Tea Parties. Ri-i-i-ight they cannot be honestly be people who are upset about the Obama Care Plan. :mrgreen:

After all no one could oppose the Obama Care and actually mean it Right? :confused:

Just how many Brooklyn Bridge Title Deeds do you own? :lol:

My view is it is a honest expression of outrage until it can be proved they are a rent a mob. And even if it is well organized it don't mean that is real outrage being expressed.

And where is the suppression of the free speech you mention?
From politicians and the bureaucrats who have a rather big soap box and with armed men who make sure they do have their venue ?

And why even suggest that people who speak up should be arrested? I thought that the 1st Amendment was for Unpopular Speech, not just popular speech and I thought we as a people do have the right to address our grievances to our elected Representatives. I guess i was wrong. People who speak out against the moral, wise, intelligent, and so benificiant all that is needed is there speech and any who oppose are dangerous and maybe should be gently reeducated or fast tracked to a euthanasia clinic if old enough.

The arrogance of this poll, the slant, the subject of it makes it a candidate for the Conspiracy Forum.
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 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..
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom