Posted on 05/07/2005 8:22:50 AM PDT by bgsugar
You're right! I forgot about the real cause of his arrest.
Spoken like an experienced practitioner of legal beagle gobbly-goop.
"There were children in the crowd and what he said was:"
Yes, yes. Think of the children. Same excuse the anti-gun lobby makes. Parents need to take responsibility for their children, not the general public.
And I know what he said. That's what college students do. When I was a student, I walked right up to Gloria Steinem and called her a b----. Stupid and immature to be sure. But it upset some fellow students who were feminists and that made it humorous to me and my friends. The lefty thought police hated that sort of stuff back in the early 90s.
The last thing we need to do is promote stifling speech on campus. That's the leftist game, my friends. This jerk getting his yucks is less important than preventing the lefty academics from using these tactics to shut up conservative students.
"IIRC, there were children in the audience. His rights of free speech serve children's public interest, let alone any adults who may have been truly offended?"
Constitutional rights are not about "children's public interest." If your little darlings are too precious for the rough and tumble of the public forum, then leave them at home.
I am sick and tired of all the Hillary-worshipping "It Takes a Village" types out there who think the world should be arranged for the benefit of children.
"If I recall correctly, he wasn't arrested for his 'speech' per se, he was arrested when he refused to leave after being asked to leave."
Haven't heard that one yet. Do you have a source? If he really was arrested for refusing to leave, then this whole discussion is moot.
As usual the scum sticks together.
There is a link to the incident report in post #15. Disorderly conduct.
He's lucky Ann's bodyguards didn't get to him.
I agree. Idiot kid should have been asked to leave. Not arrested.
Our courts have other things to do.
There's an argument for a fighting words exception, though, isn't there? Though I guess that would somewhat depend on the actions of the others present...did anyone actually get up to try to grab the guy (I've heard differing things...)
Zero tolerance for liberal idiots who throw things at people. Deal with it.
"There's an argument for a fighting words exception, though, isn't there?"
"Fighting words" is a very narrow exception, and the words really have to be out there. Otherwise, you run the risk of the heckler's veto problem - i.e. whenever someone says something you don't like, start getting unruly so you can accuse the speaker of using fighting words.
The original articles as well as several post threads here made this point. I'm fairly new to FR, so I'm not sure how to pull up those old posts and threads, or I would post them.
Sorry. I don't have time right now to look into it myself- got things to do, but you might look the original Drudge post, for example...
"Zero tolerance for liberal idiots who throw things at people. Deal with it."
Except nothing was throw was it? Perhaps you ought to read the article before you shoot off your mouth.
"I don't have time right now to look into it myself [...]"
As I thought.
Even if the verbal question regarding men "#(&(^% their wives in the &^%" is taken off the table, how does the separate public act of simulating solo masturbation qualify as having "serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value"?
Oh man, I hope he doesn't read this thread. He'll apply for a grant as a "performance artist."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.