RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/2/2008 7:27:09 PM)

Edited. Not worth arguing about.



Marcus. -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/2/2008 8:29:28 PM)

We had a thread on this topic before. Seems to me the real problem we identified was some folks being obnoxious and others deciding to use loudspeakers/bullhorns to get folks to listen to them.

I still don't agree with free speech zones. I shouldn't have to fear arrest if I engaged another person or even a public speaker in a debate and took the traditional belief position while outside of a free speech zone. That isn't the spirit of our country. Open debate is.



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/2/2008 9:26:44 PM)

Edited. Not worth arguing about.



Starbucks880 -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/2/2008 9:40:44 PM)

I have no problem with free speech zones, because I think I should have the right to walk in public and not get harassed. Being a city person, I have seen my share of kooks who think they are Jesus or think they need to preach at everyone. Even if it is a preacher that isn't crazy, I think they still should be in a place where they won't disturb people who don't want to hear them and for those that do, they can go crowd around him. That goes for any religion. I have had one situation where there was a guy shouting at people from the sidewalk (whether he was sane or not is debatable) and I tried to go past, but he blocked my way and when I shoved past him, he followed me, shouting--kind of holding his Bible by his mouth as if he wanted to make a bullhorn out of it. That is harassment. While I do think it can be good entertainment, it gets old fast. Not to mention if that person is by a workplace or classroom, that would be making a disturbance by making those inside unable to concentrate on what they are there for. I think public has a right to do without that. I also feel I should be able to walk without having to listen to a sermon even if they are just standing and shouting. I get preaching in church--that is where I want to hear it--nowhere else. Free Speech doesn't mean you have unlimited rights.



upNORTder -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/2/2008 10:17:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbucks880

I have no problem with free speech zones, because I think I should have the right to walk in public and not get harassed. Being a city person, I have seen my share of kooks who think they are Jesus or think they need to preach at everyone. Even if it is a preacher that isn't crazy, I think they still should be in a place where they won't disturb people who don't want to hear them and for those that do, they can go crowd around him. That goes for any religion. I have had one situation where there was a guy shouting at people from the sidewalk (whether he was sane or not is debatable) and I tried to go past, but he blocked my way and when I shoved past him, he followed me, shouting--kind of holding his Bible by his mouth as if he wanted to make a bullhorn out of it. That is harassment. While I do think it can be good entertainment, it gets old fast. Not to mention if that person is by a workplace or classroom, that would be making a disturbance by making those inside unable to concentrate on what they are there for. I think public has a right to do without that. I also feel I should be able to walk without having to listen to a sermon even if they are just standing and shouting. I get preaching in church--that is where I want to hear it--nowhere else. Free Speech doesn't mean you have unlimited rights.



If someone is blocking your way, they are breaking the law and subject to arrest. If a person is talking without amplification in a public space that's thier right. It is your right to walk away from them.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from speech.



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/3/2008 12:36:17 AM)

Edited. Not worth arguing about.



Marcus. -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/3/2008 1:08:40 AM)

I guess the concept of inalienable rights is dead these days. That makes me regret serving in the Armed Forces if that is true. The ideas I stood up for is dead then.



Sophie11 -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/3/2008 9:56:28 AM)

I visited the Repent America website and IMO it seems this man and others are in the habit of getting in trouble. It seems they purposefully disobey the law and then when arrested start screaming about their freedom of speech.



morningmike -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/4/2008 6:42:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: upNORTder

To set aside a zone for the right of freedom of speech is to deny that right everywhere else.


Ah, free speech zones. The first time I ever heard that phrase was when George Bush came to my town...and the secret service restricted protesters to an area far away from where the President was speaking, basically so he wouldn't have to see them.

I thought it was a ludicrous idea then, and still do now.

Mike



Sophie11 -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/4/2008 9:13:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morningmike
Ah, free speech zones. The first time I ever heard that phrase was when George Bush came to my town...and the secret service restricted protesters to an area far away from where the President was speaking, basically so he wouldn't have to see them.

I thought it was a ludicrous idea then, and still do now.


Why is it ludicrous? If protesters want to say something, they can still say it. It has to do with protecting the president.

If you are against them being closer to the president, why not just let them stand right next to him then? Where they can shout directly in his ear?

It would be total chaos and a dangerous situation. There has to be limits on the things you allow people to do.



morningmike -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/4/2008 9:49:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

quote:

ORIGINAL: morningmike
Ah, free speech zones. The first time I ever heard that phrase was when George Bush came to my town...and the secret service restricted protesters to an area far away from where the President was speaking, basically so he wouldn't have to see them.

I thought it was a ludicrous idea then, and still do now.


Why is it ludicrous? If protesters want to say something, they can still say it. It has to do with protecting the president.

If you are against them being closer to the president, why not just let them stand right next to him then? Where they can shout directly in his ear?

It would be total chaos and a dangerous situation. There has to be limits on the things you allow people to do.


Come on, total chaos? These weren't gun-waving coked-out freaks. They were demonstrators, totally within their first amendment rights to carry a sign and make a protest against the president. He didn't want to see them, and the secret service assured that.

They sure didn't mind allowing everyone else crowd the route that he took to get where he was going, or to stand around near where he entered the building.

As far as protecting him, I would be more concerned about someone who blended in to the crowd rather than someone who was carrying some sort of sign.

Actually, looking back on it, I believe I remember the official designation was "first amendment zone" or some such laughable tripe.

Yes, it was ludicrous, but not surprising.

Mike



Sophie11 -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/4/2008 10:22:21 AM)

Well why is it that they should have the right to stand in front of the president waving derogatory signs in his face? Can't they just be happy to do it farther down the street? What about the rights of the people who are there to support the president?

Did the "demonstrators" still carry their signs? Did they still protest? I'm sure they probably did. Who violated their right to free speech then?

Freedom to say as you please has limitations. These limitations also extend to the place in which you are speaking. There are many places that one cannot go to and say anything they want.

It is funny though how people who are trying to ruin a good experience for many then complain that some right has been denied them when they are unable to accomplish their task.



morningmike -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/4/2008 10:35:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

Well why is it that they should have the right to stand in front of the president waving derogatory signs in his face? Can't they just be happy to do it farther down the street? What about the rights of the people who are there to support the president?

Did the "demonstrators" still carry their signs? Did they still protest? I'm sure they probably did. Who violated their right to free speech then?

Freedom to say as you please has limitations. These limitations also extend to the place in which you are speaking. There are many places that one cannot go to and say anything they want.

It is funny though how people who are trying to ruin a good experience for many then complain that some right has been denied them when they are unable to accomplish their task.


So in other words, as long as the speech is okey dokey by you, it's okey dokey for everyone else, right?

The whole point is the hyprocisy of moving someone with whose speech you disagree several blocks away so that the target of the protest doesn't have to have his experience sullied by their presence, and then calling the prescribed location for said protest a "first amendment zone."

Mike



Marcus. -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/4/2008 10:39:58 AM)

So we free speech zones where you can exercise your "inalienable" right to dissent.

In some countries, we have hate crimes laws that are being used to sue pastors for teaching Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 and 20, i.e. Sweden and Canada. We have our own move to get hate crimes legislation on the books including one that bans the same as discriminatory in Colorado now.

Freedom of speech guarantees our right to express our opinion even the unpopular ones. The men who wrote the Amendment thought that protecting the unpopular and even offensive speech was the real intent. After all who cares if you spread goodwill but if you dissent and upset people by saying things that are true but unpopular, you'll offend someone. If you relegate the unpopular but true speech to out of the way areas how will you be able to take part in public debate and influence the government and society?

The right to not be offended isn't in the Constitution.



Sophie11 -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/4/2008 11:04:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morningmike

So in other words, as long as the speech is okey dokey by you, it's okey dokey for everyone else, right?


I never said that. Thanks for putting those words in my mouth though, I appreciate it. Really.

quote:

The whole point is the hyprocisy of moving someone with whose speech you disagree several blocks away so that the target of the protest doesn't have to have his experience sullied by their presence, and then calling the prescribed location for said protest a "first amendment zone."


Ok. Then let's say that you allow the protesters to enter into whatever stage the president is speaking. When (or if) they start screaming at him so loud that his voice is now inaudible, is his freedom of speech then being violated? What would you want to be done then?



Sophie11 -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/4/2008 11:16:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

So we free speech zones where you can exercise your "inalienable" right to dissent.


They still do have the right to dissent. Unless they are being arrested for what they are saying they still have their freedom of speech.

quote:

In some countries, we have hate crimes laws that are being used to sue pastors for teaching Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 and 20, i.e. Sweden and Canada. We have our own move to get hate crimes legislation on the books including one that bans the same as discriminatory in Colorado now.


Now see this is a different story, and I completely disagree with such action being taken. When it comes to making certain speech a crime that is when we get into the area of taking away someones right to free speech, and it is wrong.

quote:

Freedom of speech guarantees our right to express our opinion even the unpopular ones. The men who wrote the Amendment thought that protecting the unpopular and even offensive speech was the real intent. After all who cares if you spread goodwill but if you dissent and upset people by saying things that are true but unpopular, you'll offend someone. If you relegate the unpopular but true speech to out of the way areas how will you be able to take part in public debate and influence the government and society?


Yes it does guarantee that right. It guarantees that the government will not be able to criminalize you for what you say, and I am sure that was meant especially so that one could publicly disagree with the government without having to fear retribution.

In my opinion though it has nothing to do with whether or not you believe the speech to be true or false, but rather the manner in which some choose to go about saying what is on their mind. If some of these protesters would act in a more civil manner and lose the signs that are nothing more than vulgar name-calling, then maybe many others who really are only there to peacefully disagree would not be something so dreaded for others.

quote:

The right to not be offended isn't in the Constitution.


But neither is the right to purposefully harrass others under the guise of free speech.



morningmike -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/4/2008 5:29:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

quote:

ORIGINAL: morningmike

So in other words, as long as the speech is okey dokey by you, it's okey dokey for everyone else, right?


I never said that. Thanks for putting those words in my mouth though, I appreciate it. Really.

quote:

The whole point is the hyprocisy of moving someone with whose speech you disagree several blocks away so that the target of the protest doesn't have to have his experience sullied by their presence, and then calling the prescribed location for said protest a "first amendment zone."


Ok. Then let's say that you allow the protesters to enter into whatever stage the president is speaking. When (or if) they start screaming at him so loud that his voice is now inaudible, is his freedom of speech then being violated? What would you want to be done then?


You're welcome.


You are, once again, missing the point. I'm not talking about people who were interested in disrupting the man's speech. I'm talking about peaceful protesters being shuffled away from the motorcade route so that Bush wouldnt' have to see them, and being herded into a "first amendment zone."

How you make the logic leap from that to the scenario you outlined above is a mystery to me, but it is truly olympian in its effort, and I applaud you.

To the best of my knowledge the Secret Service doesn't just "let in" anybody to an inside event where the president is speaking. So the protesters chances of getting in would have been nil anyway.

Just so you'll know, I think that interrupting anyone, in the manner you keep referring to, is extremely rude and will usually get you thrown out of the assembly.

Mike



Sophie11 -> RE: Fine for preaching in public challenged (7/5/2008 11:19:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morningmike

You are, once again, missing the point. I'm not talking about people who were interested in disrupting the man's speech. I'm talking about peaceful protesters being shuffled away from the motorcade route so that Bush wouldnt' have to see them, and being herded into a "first amendment zone."

How you make the logic leap from that to the scenario you outlined above is a mystery to me, but it is truly olympian in its effort, and I applaud you.

To the best of my knowledge the Secret Service doesn't just "let in" anybody to an inside event where the president is speaking. So the protesters chances of getting in would have been nil anyway.

Just so you'll know, I think that interrupting anyone, in the manner you keep referring to, is extremely rude and will usually get you thrown out of the assembly.

Mike


Ok, well I'm saying based on my observations of protesters against Bush, they are not always "peaceful" protesters.

And if they only planned to stand there holding a sign and not shouting, how was their freedom of speech violated then?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI