• 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
The Mark said:
I dunno...

I personally never put someone on my ignore list (I have one?).

IMO, if you ignore someone, you are just avoiding the questions your response to their presense/actions poses to you.

But that's just me.
Click to expand...

If a child keeps pestering their parent crying they want a cookie, the best thing to do is not reward that childish behavior, but to ignore it.

& I agree with you last line....That is just you...Not me.;)

Edit:
We all have the ability to ignore particularly obnoxious trolls by doing this:
User CP/Settings & Options/Edit Ignore List
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
You guys just evidently can'r read the word PEACEABLY so I have made it stand out for you. (My last response on this overused & failed argument)
Click to expand...

Back during our founders day speakers spoke loudly and the audience responded the same. So i do not believe that people who speak loudly are infringing on others right of speech. So it is your argument that has failed.
 
Shadow Serious said:
Back during our founders day speakers spoke loudly and the audience responded the same. So i do not believe that people who speak loudly are infringing on others right of speech. So it is your argument that has failed.
Click to expand...

What "peaceably" means will always be open to subjective interpretation. What one cop may consider peaceable another may deem a crime. (it's up to the courts & a jury of your peers to sort it all out) Do you not accept that fact of life?
 
Devil505 said:
You guys just evidently can’t read the word PEACEABLY so I have made it stand out for you. (My last response on this overused & failed argument)
Click to expand...

"Us guys" have, can, and will read the word "peaceably".

However, as you are aware, there are currently laws in place ("disturbing the peace"?) to curtail excessive disruption of "the peace". As I understand it, these laws have a purposefully general area of coverage, so that it is basically up to the law enforcement officer on the scene to determine what should prompt their use.
Further, these laws are intended (again, as I understand it) to provide nothing more than a method for police to remove people from a situation before it gets out of hand, and charges stemming from such an arrest are in most cases dropped after the arrestees have cooled down.
--------------------
What you are suggesting would require that somehow we legislate what, precisely, "disturbing the peace" is.
Additionally, you suggest that we add an additional potential charge to someone "disturbing the peace", which would allow prosecution for "infringing the free speech rights of others", or something to that effect.

Is this correct?
 
Oh, Devil.

Oh Devil

Lookie Here.

Lookie Here.

Lookie Here what i found that supports your point.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5IInBP9D_s"]YouTube - TAMPA TOWN HALL MEETING - VIOLENCE FROM UNION THUGS[/ame]

And Look at This.

And Look at This Devil,

And Look at This.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5Q3p6jClQM"]YouTube - UNION THUGS VICIOUSLY ATTACK A BLACK PATRIOT[/ame]


Is this what you mean Devil?

Is this what you mean Devil?

Uh, humm?
 
Devil505 said:
Since I & many others feel that the shouting protest at many health care rallies is being orchestrated, & appears designed to prevent the American voter from hearing the other side of the issue, I ask the above poll question.
Whether or not our suspicions (including those of press Sec Gibbs at today's briefing C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics) prove to be true, my poll question remains.

The last option should read: If fake, (operatives proven to be merely "Posing" as concerned citizens while actually being paid money for the purpose of inhibiting free speech) protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

As I recall,,,most Left Wing "Protests" I've seen in the past weren't all that polite, or sanitary.:lol: Remember the Democratic Convention in Denver? The Leftists were carrying buckets of crap to throw around...:roll:
 
Shadow Serious said:
Oh, Devil.

Oh Devil

Lookie Here.

Lookie Here.

Lookie Here what i found that supports your point.

YouTube - TAMPA TOWN HALL MEETING - VIOLENCE FROM UNION THUGS

And Look at This.

And Look at This Devil,

And Look at This.

YouTube - UNION THUGS VICIOUSLY ATTACK A BLACK PATRIOT


Is this what you mean Devil?

Is this what you mean Devil?

Uh, humm?
Click to expand...




From page 17

Moderator's Warning:
Going to say this once, to both sides.

This thread is not talking about any specific event. Its the only reason its here, rather than conspiracy theories. If the continued attempts to either steer it towards a singular event, by either side, then action will be taken with the poster, the thread, or both.


I hope the mods will carry through on the above warning by dealing with the violating poster & not the thread itself. Many of us, on both side are trying to keep this thread generic & an intelligent discussion on protests rights/tactics in general. It would be a shame to allow one side to shut down this discussion, which I fear may be the ultimate goal of some.
 
Last edited:
Realist1 said:
As I recall,,,most Left Wing "Protests" I've seen in the past weren't all that polite, or sanitary.:lol: Remember the Democratic Convention in Denver? The Leftists were carrying buckets of crap to throw around...:roll:
Click to expand...


I am not defending anyone's use of tactics designed to curtail anyone else's Freedom of Speech. (getting tired of repeating that so I will assume that some of you understand that full well & are just trying to be annoying....& are succeeding!)
 
Devil505 said:
Since I & many others feel that the shouting protest at many health care rallies is being orchestrated, & appears designed to prevent the American voter from hearing the other side of the issue, I ask the above poll question.
Whether or not our suspicions (including those of press Sec Gibbs at today's briefing C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics) prove to be true, my poll question remains.

The last option should read: If fake, (operatives proven to be merely "Posing" as concerned citizens while actually being paid money for the purpose of inhibiting free speech) protesters & their masters should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

It might not be a bad idea to hold the Union Thugs accountable for blocking people from voicing their opinions...It's obvious to all that they're "bought and paid for" by the Dems...:lol:
 
Last edited:
Realist1 said:
It might not be a bad idea to hold the Union Thugs accountable for blocking people from voicing their opinions...It's obvious to all that they're "bought and paid for" by the Dems...:lol:
Click to expand...

I can't argue with you there either.

BUT

If one side hires thugs to get in the face of others they should not run home to mommy crying when thugs from the other side give them a bloody nose.;)
 
Devil505 said:
I can't argue with you there either.

BUT

If one side hires thugs to get in the face of others they should not run home to mommy crying when thugs from the other side give them a bloody nose.;)
Click to expand...

If,,,or when you find anyone opposed to the B.O. Health Care Boondoggle, that's being "bought"...I'll agree with you. Until then,,,we KNOW the Unions are "Bought, and Paid" for.:lol:
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
From page 17

Moderator's Warning:
Going to say this once, to both sides.

This thread is not talking about any specific event. Its the only reason its here, rather than conspiracy theories. If the continued attempts to either steer it towards a singular event, by either side, then action will be taken with the poster, the thread, or both.


I hope the mods will carry through on the above warning by dealing with the violating poster & not the thread itself. Many of us, on both side are trying to keep this thread generic & an intelligent discussion on protests rights/tactics in general. It would be a shame to allow one side to shut down this discussion, which I fear may be the ultimate goal of some.
Click to expand...

Devil505 said:
Here you go. (bought & paid for by the GOP posing as "Just A Mom")

Think Progress Woman Who Said She Was ‘Just A Mom’ At Town Hall Meeting Is Exposed As A Republican Operative
Click to expand...

Besides the point I just made without typing anything, I would be grateful if you would respond to my post #304, wherein I asked:

The Mark said:
What you are suggesting would require that somehow we legislate what, precisely, "disturbing the peace" is.
Additionally, you suggest that we add an additional potential charge to someone "disturbing the peace", which would allow prosecution for "infringing the free speech rights of others", or something to that effect.

Is this correct?
Click to expand...
 
Devil505 said:
Here you go. (bought & paid for by the GOP posing as "Just A Mom")

Think Progress Woman Who Said She Was ‘Just A Mom’ At Town Hall Meeting Is Exposed As A Republican Operative
Click to expand...
Yeah, no one who is (correction was) a member of the Republican Party could ever have their own desires and concerns regarding health care. Every Republican must be receiving secret instructions from the RNC. That's why the secret decoder rings are cleverly hidden in every other box of Cracker Jacks.:roll:

Your link proves she was a Republican. Let's look at the substance of the "proof" she's a Republican operative--her LinkedIn Profile:

  • Her LinkedIn Groups and interests--Vice-chair, Republican Party of Kewaunee County, Executive Committee Member, 8th Congressional District Republican Party of Wisconsin, Member, Republican Party of Wisconsin, Republican National Committee. Ok, she's interested in Republican politics and politicians. That makes her a Republican "operative"? Hardly. FAIL.
  • Her most recent role in the local Republican Party ended in February 2008. She stated on camera she had not paid her dues in "2 years"; if she paid her dues in 2007, her membership in the Republican Party would have lapsed in early 2008--exactly when her LinkedIn profile shows her involvement in the local Republican Party ending. This puts her on the payroll of the RNC? Hardly. FAIL.
  • She worked on John Gard's Congressional Campaign. Of course, that sort of PR work is what she does for a living. So making a living promoting people and causes makes her an operative of the RNC? Hardly. FAIL.
Nothing on her LinkedIn profile supports anything but her original contention at the town hall meeting--that she was there on her own, as a mother, not as part of any organized political agenda.

Further, she didn't disrupt the proceedings. She asked civil questions in a civil tone. She was not disorderly, she did not disturb the peace. Not only is there no proof that she was a "plant", but even if she were, she did not do anything that could be considered a violation of the law. If this is an example of the kind of "fake" protester you wish to incarcerate, then your stance is even more odious and unAmerican than it seemed at the beginning.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Besides the point I just made without typing anything, I would be grateful if you would respond to my post #304, wherein I asked:
Additionally, you suggest that we add an additional potential charge to someone "disturbing the peace", which would allow prosecution for "infringing the free speech rights of others", or something to that effect.

Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Just as Congress made many previously (State jurisdiction) crimes like Murder (of a President or murder as a Hate Crime") federal offenses, I see no reason why crossing state borders with the intention of interfering with someone's First Amendment rights couldn't also be mnade a federal crime.
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but simply answering your question.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Your link proves she was a Republican.
Click to expand...
& she was trying to deceive by hiding any affiliation she had with the GOP & saying that she was "Just A Mom".

The "Was" a Republican dodge is total BS. (she isn't a current Republican because she claims she hasn't paid her recent dues???)
Suppose in 1954, the FBI arrested a communist agent who they could prove was the current cell leader in his city. How far do you think a defense of "I'm not a communist....I haven't paid my party dues this month" would get him at trial?

I have misjudged you as a man of your word, who agreed to acknowledge proof when presented to you. I further guessed that you would simply deny ANY proof as bogus & you have lived up to my expectations.
Your torturing of logic does not negate that fact that this woman was attempting to deceive the people & media by hiding her GOP affiliation.

I have completed my part of the bargain....You have reneged on yours. Let any other member who engages you in debate understand that you are not a man of your word.

If your word means nothing to you.......Why should it mean anything to anyone else?

We are drifting off topic & into specifics so I will end this conversation right now.
(if you wish to continue it, bring it here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/53591-healthcare-rally-protests-staged.html
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Just as Congress made many previously (State jurisdiction) crimes like Murder (of a President or murder as a Hate Crime") federal offenses, I see no reason why crossing state borders with the intention of interfering with someone's First Amendment rights couldn't also be mnade a federal crime.
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but simply answering your question.
Click to expand...
Actually, the First Amendment itself precludes such an action.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
If a person speaks out loudly, boorishly, and disruptively, seeking to co-opt and frame public debate, while it is arguable that such a person intrudes upon the First Amendment rights of others, Congress is precluded from criminalizing that person's own First Amendment rights. The power of Congress to pass laws circumscribing free speech is itself greatly circumscribed.

The broadest justification* would be Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes "clear and present danger" rule, articulated in Schenck v United States (249 US 47):
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
Click to expand...
Does mere shouting and unruly behavior rise to the level of a substantive evil that Congress has the right and duty to prevent? Hardly. At worst it is disturbing the peace, and, as such, it is the duty of the state and the municipality to regulate. Congress lacks the competence to legislate a federal disturbing the peace standard.

If a person becomes unruly in a public setting, the local constabulary are already sufficiently endowed with legal recourse to contain the situation and remove the unruly person; there is no need to amplify their powers in this regard.

----------------------------
*It should be noted that the "clear and present danger" rule of Schenck was further circumscribed by Whitney v People of the State of California (274 US 357) and again by Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 US 444), which established a standard of "imminent lawless action" in place of a "clear and present danger."
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
I have misjudged you as a man of your word, who agreed to acknowledge proof when presented to you. I further guessed that you would simply deny ANY proof as bogus & you have lived up to my expectations.
Click to expand...
I acknowledged that you proved she was a Republican. You have proffered no evidence that she was paid to be at that town hall meeting, nor that she is in the employ of the RNC. Mere party affiliation does not disqualify her commentary, nor does it make her statement of being there "as a mom" a lie.

Devil505 said:
Your torturing of logic does not negate that fact that this woman was attempting to deceive the people & media by hiding her GOP affiliation.
Click to expand...
She said she was no longer involved in the local Republican party. How was she attempting to conceal anything?

Devil505 said:
I have completed my part of the bargain....You have reneged on yours. Let any other member who engages you in debate understand that you are not a man of your word.
Click to expand...
You have not, and I have not reneged. You state the matter falsely.

What others will think of my words, here or elsewhere, is a matter for them and their respective consciences. I have no apology to make, nor will I. I have stated my case, and I have stated how you have failed to make your case.

I will also state that this thread is not about proving one person or another is a "plant" at any town hall meeting, but to discuss the merits of legal sanction against such persons. I rebutted your assertion of proof that Ms Blish was such a person to illustrate the fecklessness and shaky legal (and political) foundation upon which such sanctions would be predicated. Your commentary in this thread amounts to a call for criminalizing political affiliations--which is itself a violation of people's First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Regardless of why a person is at a town hall meeting, it is their right to be their, and it is their right to be heard. You have offered no convincing argument why that should not be so.
 
celticlord said:
I acknowledged that you proved she was a Republican. You have proffered no evidence that she was paid to be at that town hall meeting, nor that she is in the employ of the RNC. Mere party affiliation does not disqualify her commentary, nor does it make her statement of being there "as a mom" a lie.


She said she was no longer involved in the local Republican party. How was she attempting to conceal anything?

You have not, and I have not reneged. You state the matter falsely.

What others will think of my words, here or elsewhere, is a matter for them and their respective consciences. I have no apology to make, nor will I. I have stated my case, and I have stated how you have failed to make your case.

I will also state that this thread is not about proving one person or another is a "plant" at any town hall meeting, but to discuss the merits of legal sanction against such persons. I rebutted your assertion of proof that Ms Blish was such a person to illustrate the fecklessness and shaky legal (and political) foundation upon which such sanctions would be predicated. Your commentary in this thread amounts to a call for criminalizing political affiliations--which is itself a violation of people's First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Regardless of why a person is at a town hall meeting, it is their right to be their, and it is their right to be heard. You have offered no convincing argument why that should not be so.
Click to expand...

From page 17

Moderator's Warning:
Going to say this once, to both sides.

This thread is not talking about any specific event. Its the only reason its here, rather than conspiracy theories. If the continued attempts to either steer it towards a singular event, by either side, then action will be taken with the poster, the thread, or both.
 
Devil505, it is possible to leave a party. Think of it as quitting a job. She quit as a Republican.

celticlord, don't bother having any reasonable debate on this topic. You just wont get it. The minute you prove him wrong he will resort to the moderators warning. (which he has done quite often).

Devil505, in order to understand what you mean by all of this, I am going to give you videos of specific events and ask you if you believe that the protesters in these events are preventing the free speech of others/disturbing the peace and therefore should be removed. I am not doing this to talk about specific events, but merely to cite examples to use for a general discussion. FYI it is possible to ask opinions on specific events to then talk about a general discussion.

I am not asking you to debate these videos, merely give your opinion on them so I know what you constitute as "disturbing the peace".
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5IInBP9D_s"]YouTube - TAMPA TOWN HALL MEETING - VIOLENCE FROM UNION THUGS[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5Q3p6jClQM"]YouTube - UNION THUGS VICIOUSLY ATTACK A BLACK PATRIOT[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo"]YouTube - Rude CNN Reporter Needs Fired Tea Party interview CNN TeaParty Tax[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
Devil505, it is possible to leave a party. Think of it as quitting a job. She quit as a Republican.

celticlord, don't bother having any reasonable debate on this topic. You just wont get it.
Click to expand...

I know I'm being deliberately drawn off topic here but....What proof (other than her words that her current dues weren't paid) do you have that she "quit" as a Republican??

She didn't even say that.
 
Devil505 said:
From page 17

Moderator's Warning:
Going to say this once, to both sides.

This thread is not talking about any specific event. Its the only reason its here, rather than conspiracy theories. If the continued attempts to either steer it towards a singular event, by either side, then action will be taken with the poster, the thread, or both.[/QUOTE
Click to expand...
 
I know I'm being deliberately drawn off topic here but....What proof (other than her words that her current dues weren't paid) do you have that she "quit" as a Republican??
Click to expand...
Please, do not go off topic. I would like to abide by the moderators warning.
 
Lakryte said:
Devil505, in order to understand what you mean by all of this, I am going to give you videos of specific events and ask you if you believe that the protesters in these events are preventing the free speech of others/disturbing the peace and therefore should be removed. I am not doing this to talk about specific events, but merely to cite examples to use for a general discussion. FYI it is possible to ask opinions on specific events to then talk about a general discussion.
Click to expand...

No need to post links.( I have the flu & am in no mood to wade through a bunch of videos)
I'll give you my answer right now:

It will always be up to the subjective opinion of the officer on the scene to determine who is committing the crime of disturbing the peace. Not mine of yours.

Further, it it can be proven that these crimes were comitted in an orchestrated way (a conspiracy) then further...more serious charges may be warranted.

Save your videos.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom