How free is free speech?

LeeEJ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Posts
1,444
Media
2
Likes
26
Points
258
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It sounds to me that they could protest all they want if they crossed the street.

Mentioning the Anacostia is a typical overreaction, IMO.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Peaceful protests in Franklin Park have also been dispersed with excessive force, simply because the White House crew doesn't like it. Even non-protesters - innocent passersby - were being clubbed, pepper-sprayed, arrested, and hauled off to jail.

That's it, move those goalposts! I don't recall anything about innocent passersby being clubbed in the OP. Obviously, a different problem calls for a different remedy.
 
6

68306

Guest
How free is free speech? Free as the imprisoned mind engaged in it.

Pre-election campaigns could be a clever way of justifying lies as an authoritative force. I guess it's all part of the greater dishonesty, and on the topic of that...


Am I the only one who finds white lies worse than black?
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
206
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Am I the only one who finds white lies worse than black?
No. Subtilty is the slippery slope. When the truth is undiscoverable people decide that everything is relative and there is no truth. We quit looking for it. The social cost is high, as well as the actual dollar losses (think Enron and recent Wall Street debacles).

Back to the OP. They've been doing this on Capitol Hill for fourteen years this spring and no one has kicked them off:

stopinfantcircumcision.org

(There's a picture at the link.)
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
It sounds to me like they can unfurl the banner, they just can't chant. Am I right?
Actually, no. The text of the law I posted was from 40 USC 6134. I think 40 USC 6132 or 40 USC 6135 deals with flags, banners, and signs. Those are illegal, too.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
No. Subtilty is the slippery slope. When the truth is undiscoverable people decide that everything is relative and there is no truth. We quit looking for it. The social cost is high, as well as the actual dollar losses (think Enron and recent Wall Street debacles).




If nothing else is ever posted on this site, this is one point I would like to see everyone understand and absorb. This sums up our entire social, political, religious and economic structuring right now.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
If nothing else is ever posted on this site, this is one point I would like to see everyone understand and absorb. This sums up our entire social, political, religious and economic structuring right now.
Well, this too, MZ. What I was really trying to draw attention to, though, is what I see as a frightening trend toward relinquishing (with no resistance, no struggle) our rights as citizens which are outlined in the first 14 amendments to the US Constitution. "It's in the name of national security." "Our government wouldn't do it if they didn't have good reason." "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried." Some of these things seem trivial, yes. The problem is when no one sees all the trivial violations in gestalt. If you make a couple of insignificant exceptions to the first amendment, then a couple more, then wait until everyone has forgotten those two, and then those four, and add a couple more and a couple more, pretty soon the IS no first amendment. I can think of a couple of historical parallels where this sort of thing happened. The people said "it could never happen here," then before they knew it, it did happen there. It was too late to do anything about it. Of course, I know I'm being alarmist, and it really never could happen in the good ole USA. And of course, our democratically elected government would never lie to us, so all the suspensions of freedoms and privacy are just temporary; we will get those back once we have captured and subdued all the terrorists (or worse, all the subversives who think they have a right to protest on public property.)
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Well, this too, MZ. What I was really trying to draw attention to, though, is what I see as a frightening trend toward relinquishing (with no resistance, no struggle) our rights as citizens which are outlined in the first 14 amendments to the US Constitution. "It's in the name of national security." "Our government wouldn't do it if they didn't have good reason." "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried." Some of these things seem trivial, yes. The problem is when no one sees all the trivial violations in gestalt. If you make a couple of insignificant exceptions to the first amendment, then a couple more, then wait until everyone has forgotten those two, and then those four, and add a couple more and a couple more, pretty soon the IS no first amendment. I can think of a couple of historical parallels where this sort of thing happened. The people said "it could never happen here," then before they knew it, it did happen there. It was too late to do anything about it. Of course, I know I'm being alarmist, and it really never could happen in the good ole USA. And of course, our democratically elected government would never lie to us, so all the suspensions of freedoms and privacy are just temporary; we will get those back once we have captured and subdued all the terrorists (or worse, all the subversives who think they have a right to protest on public property.)


Oh, we are on exactly the same train of thought. All those things you say are true, exactly. My point in underlining dxjnorto's post on subtlety is what I see as being at the root of the problem, for just the reasons you stated. People don't see how just one little thing, added with hundreds of other "one little things" add up to a big fucking problem. Yes, we're all alramists, while our rights are being eroded away subtlely and the Moral Majority thinks they still have the right to put their hands on their hips and shake thier fingers and say "Well, I didn't mean this!"*

No one wants to accept that their ideas, when put to a vote, equal consequences. Voting for people who do horrific things politically, just because they say a few catchphrases that one might agree with morally, is beyond stupid. I am tired of our whole country taking the hit because the majority of our people have A) very little reasoning capabilities and B) no belief in, or understanding of, personal responsibility. There are certainly people in positions of power who know how to capitalise on the knowledge that these two facts exist.





*every once in a while, I can't help but quote Ayn Rand.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Again, those arrested were not arrested for disturbing the peace - they were arrested for possessing a printed banner on public property. There was no indication that they were loud, blocking access, or infringing on any other person's rights.

If I missed something, and any of you know of any reports of the protesters were blocking access or making an inordinate amount of noise, or harrassing other citizens, please by all means bring it to my attention.

Otherwise, please explain to me (I'm a bit dense sometimes) how it can be illegal for a citizen to walk on a public sidewalk during normal business hours.

Do you know if they applied for a permit to protest?

For conservatives (or the establishment) to try and stop protests, even mildly violent ones, is really a dumb idea. People whose voices are not allowed to be heard become more subversive and ultimately revolutionaries, if their beliefs allows for it.

Here in Miami a couple years back the police department gratuitously brutalized some world economy summit protesters. It was pretty disgusting and no one was held responsible. The citizens committee set up to investigate the whole mess simply white washed it.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Do you know if they applied for a permit to protest?

For conservatives (or the establishment) to try and stop protests, even mildly violent ones, is really a dumb idea. People whose voices are not allowed to be heard become more subversive and ultimately revolutionaries, if their beliefs allows for it.

Here in Miami a couple years back the police department gratuitously brutalized some world economy summit protesters. It was pretty disgusting and no one was held responsible. The citizens committee set up to investigate the whole mess simply white washed it.
I do not recall seeing any mention, in that article, of whether or not "permits" were obtained.

I agree, too, that trying to silence protesters tends to exacerbate, rather than mitigate, the problem.

I think I remember reading about the Miami protest/riot. World Bank always has problems during their big meetings here. There always seems to be some indication of misconduct in police handling of protests, but there never seems to be any consequences. No, that's not exactly right. The police chief clucked his tongue and shook his finger. The mayor called them naughty, and said it would not happen again. That was, like, 8 protests (and 8 misconducts) ago. Good thing we all have short memories, right?

:wink: Wow, spiker and dc-deep agreeing. The sky must be falling.