• 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
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.
Click to expand...
Then what is the point of this topic if we can't discuss our opinions? If you were a police officer what would you say to those situations?

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.
Click to expand...
"organized protest" is not against the law. Nor does "orchestrated" = conspiracy.

Every single ACORN protest is orchestrated by...um...members of ACORN. Should they be illegal because of that? To make matters worse, they are often not very peaceable.
 
Devil505 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This country has been down this road before, in the aftermath of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the trial of the Chicago Seven.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven]Chicago Seven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It is instructive to note that none of the original convictions survived appeal, and even most of the contempt charges were not sustained on re-trial (while the few contempt charges that were sustained did not result in jail time or fines for the defendants).

Criminalizing protest has never been a good idea. It undermines the rule of law, it weakens the credibility of the courts, and it ultimately comes back to bite government in the ass.
 
Lakryte said:
Then what is the point of this topic if we can't discuss our opinions?
Click to expand...
You have made your opinion known ad nauseam.....You simply keep repeating it, to the benefit of no one.
 
Lakryte said:
"organized protest" is not against the law. Nor does "orchestrated" = conspiracy.
Click to expand...
An excellent point. In order for there to be a conspiracy, there must first be a crime, either committed or planned. No crime means no conspiracy.

Protest, at least in the United States, is not a crime. The history of this country is that speaking out is a civic good, not a civic harm.
 
You have made your opinion known ad nauseam.....You simply keep repeating it, to the benefit of no one.
Click to expand...
I am simply asking a question. Will you answer it? I ask my questions over and over again because you refuse to answer any of them.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Criminalizing protest has never been a good idea. It undermines the rule of law, it weakens the credibility of the courts, and it ultimately comes back to bite government in the ass.
Click to expand...

No one wants to criminalize the act of protest itself..... Just tactics designed to infringe on other's First Amend. rights
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
No one wants to criminalize the act of protest itself..... Just tactics designed to infringe on other's First Amend. rights
Click to expand...
Small problem: who decides?

Yeah, people shouting and acting all rude and surly are obnoxious, but surly and speaking out is better protection for individual liberty than civil and silent.

Tolerating incivility is a small price to pay for civil liberty.
 
Devil505 said:
No one wants to criminalize the act of protest itself..... Just tactics designed to infringe on other's First Amend. rights
Click to expand...

The problem with freedoms is sometimes people will use those freedoms to be assholes. I don't think we can make being an asshole illegal. No one at these "protests" is infringing on any ones rights in any real way, they are just making asses of themselves.
 
Devil505 said:
We The People

(a jury of your peers decides fact .....as they always do)
Click to expand...
Deciding fact after the fact, after detention, after the event has passed, is itself a suppression of speech.

If a person is being unruly and disturbing the peace, there are already laws enough to address such behavior. If a person's conduct does not rise to the level of disturbing the peace, if the local constabulary are not inspired to intervene, then we should not reach farther than that to impute malfeasance on anyone.

The right of the people is to speak freely. The right of the people is to peaceably assemble. The right of the people is to petition the government for redress of grievances. Nowhere in the First Amendment is it found that such rights are contingent upon their expression being of a spontaneous and individual nature.

Regardless of whether protests are "orchestrated"/"organized" or random, within the boundaries of preserving the public peace, all protests are legal, lawful, and deserving of the law's protection.
 
Redress said:
I don't think we can make being an asshole illegal.
Click to expand...
And it's a damn good thing, too! Otherwise I'd be doing life without parole! :mrgreen:

(where you been hidin'?)
 
celticlord said:
If a person is being unruly and disturbing the peace, there are already laws enough to address such behavior.
Click to expand...

The State of Texas already had laws against murder when Oswald assassinated Kennedy.
Congress still passed new federal laws against assinating a President, right? (Making this a new federal violation allows for the involvement of (usually better resourced) federal agencies like the FBI to investigate the case)

I can think of few things more important than protection our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
The State of Texas already had laws against murder when Oswald assassinated Kennedy.
Congress still passed new federal laws against assinating a President, right? (Making this a new federal violation allows for the involvement of (usually better resourced) federal agencies like the FBI to investigate the case)
Click to expand...
You're making a comparison between assassination of a President and a shout-out at a town hall???????????

That dog will never hunt.

Devil505 said:
I can think of few things more important than protection our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Click to expand...
Oh, what a "devil" you truly are, to be able to quote Scripture with such facility!

What you propose is to diminish those rights. You are not arguing defense of rights, but denigration of rights; you are arguing a despising of rights.

You seek to silence protest on the capricious and whimsical basis that it is "fake"; that is silencing speech that the Constitution mandates be kept free.

Protest is protected speech. THAT is the Constitutional guarantee.
 
celticlord said:
And it's a damn good thing, too! Otherwise I'd be doing life without parole! :mrgreen:

(where you been hidin'?)
Click to expand...

Hmmmm I'm writing my Congressman right now!:mrgreen:
 
celticlord said:
And it's a damn good thing, too! Otherwise I'd be doing life without parole! :mrgreen:

(where you been hidin'?)
Click to expand...

Nah, you might get parole some day....

(I had to pick between groceries or internet last month, groceries won. On the plus side, my work called this week to make sure I was still available for work, so hopefully they are looking to call people back soon)
 
Redress said:
Nah, you might get parole some day....

(I had to pick between groceries or internet last month, groceries won. On the plus side, my work called this week to make sure I was still available for work, so hopefully they are looking to call people back soon)
Click to expand...
Oh please, you know you needed to go on a diet anyway! :mrgreen:

(fingers crossed you get the call though! ;) )
 
Legislaters must learn to write enforceable laws.
In the process they must work with others (the criminal justice system)..to this end...
And, some news, the old ways do not always work.
 
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 made a federal crime.
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but simply answering your question.
Click to expand...

So, to be clear:

You, Devil505, see no reason why a federal law cannot be put in place to punish persons who cross state borders with the intention of interfering with some other person's first amendment rights.

A few questions:

Why the "crossing state borders" stipulation?

What do you consider "interfering with someones first amendment rights"?

What, specifically, do you refer to when you say "first amendment rights"?

A reference to assist you: The United States Constitution - First Amendment
 
Devil505 said:
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?
Click to expand...

What "peaceably" means in context of the 1st Amendment is the original intent, that is, not a rioting mob or insurrection, but Citizens who gather together and protest discontent. I do not see how you keep going on about being too loud. These are public meetings not a NPR studio.
 
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...


I was just citing examples of people who are being organized and are suppressing the freedoms of speech of others and it follows under your 1st post so it is allowed. Notice i do not subscribe that it is a Conspiracy since that would require more secrecy than has been shown. I also do not believe the suppressors are being paid to do so in this case so no money changes hands. Saying they would get some perks in exchange would be Conspiratorial i really those "Thugs" are there for their own beliefs and need no further encouragement. Just like the people who attend and are beaten upon.
 
The Mark said:
So, to be clear:

You, Devil505, see no reason why a federal law cannot be put in place to punish persons who cross state borders with the intention of interfering with some other person's first amendment rights.

A few questions:

Why the "crossing state borders" stipulation?
Click to expand...

Typically, (unless the crime takes place on federal property) in order for a crime to be under federal jurisdiction, it must be believed that the crime is not just a local one, but that it has national characteristics/implications that may warrant a federal agency (typically FBI) to get involved with the case. (example: kidnapping is only an FBI jurisdiction case after a certain time period passes, under the assumption the the kidnapper probably brought the victim across state lines.

The Mark said:
What do you consider "interfering with someones first amendment rights"?
Click to expand...
That's what the law would have to be carefully drawn up to enumerate.


The Mark said:
What, specifically, do you refer to when you say "first amendment rights"?
Click to expand...
I'm referring to freedom of speech & peaceable assembly, but I'm not an AUSA so there may be other rights that fall under the First Amendment that allude me right now.
 
Last edited:
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...


Please show where the protesters against the Universal Health Care Proposal are engaging in assault and battery. I do not consider speaking loudly to be Assault and do not give me any business about disturbing the peace or drowning out other peoples speech.
 
Shadow Serious said:
Please show where the protesters against the Universal Health Care Proposal are engaging in assault and battery. I do not consider speaking loudly to be Assault and do not give me any business about disturbing the peace or drowning out other peoples speech.
Click to expand...


Off Topic (seepage 17...Mod warning)
 
Devil505 said:
Typically, (unless the crime takes place on federal property) in order for a crime to be under federal jurisdiction, it must be believed that the crime is not just a local one, but that it has national characteristics/implications that may warrant a federal agency (typically FBI) to get involved with the case. (example: kidnapping is only an FBI jurisdiction case after a certain time period passes, under the assumption the kidnapper probably brought the victim across state lines.
Click to expand...

That makes sense then. But what if someone traveled from one side of the state to the other side of the state? For example, from one election district to another, with intentions to "infringe on the free speech rights of others" in that other district? Would this not also be a problem in your eyes? If so, would you not wish a state law to be put in place to the same effect as your proposed federal law?

Devil505 said:
That's what the law would have to be carefully drawn up to enumerate.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the issue most take with your proposal.
There is far too much possibility for misuse, misinterpretation, addition, amendment, etc. in such a law, which, IMO, is why the constitution doesn't try, but simply allows all.

I simply do not trust anyone except myself to regulate how I can speak.

Further, I consider it to be a violation of my free speech rights to regulate how loudly I can say something (which, as I understand it, is one of your issues with some speech). There are currently in place some restrictions on what you can say, such as not inciting violence with your words, and the like. Such restrictions make sense, to some extent.

Devil505 said:
I'm referring to freedom of speech & peaceable assembly, but I'm not an AUSA so there may be other rights that fall under the First Amendment that allude me right now.
Click to expand...

That's what I assumed you were referring to, but I wanted to be sure.

What's an "AUSA"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom