Posted on 01/13/2008 1:51:13 PM PST by wagglebee
"A third of my generation is dead because of politicians like Giuliani." -- Steven Pokorny, age 28, at Giuliani during meeting in Miami, Sunday, Jan. 13
MIAMI, Jan. 13 /Christian Newswire/ -- Rudy Giuliani was rattled by pro-life advocates and canceled his speech at his first bus-tour event Sunday in Miami. Activists have planned confrontations with Rudy for every stop of his Florida bus tour. Photos available online.
On Sunday, Jan. 13, at approximately 12:15 PM, pro-life activists were in the crowd at The Green Street Cafe (located at 3110 Commodor Plaza, Coconut Grove Florida, just outside Miami) waiting for Giuliani to begin his Florida Bus Tour.
When Rudy Giuliani arrived, Joseph Landry (age 26) was within 5 feet of the candidate, and began yelling: You are a baby killer! You are a baby killer! Florida is pro-life! Rudy wants public funding for abortion!" See news report. Law enforcement officials immediately escorted Mr. Landry from the area, while Mr. Landry continued his monologue.
Within Minutes, Steven Pokorny, age 28, stood to his feet and cried out, "A third of my generation is dead because of politicians like Giuliani! Giuliani wants to kill children and have you pay for it!" Law enforcement did not stop Mr. Pokorny.
At that point, Giuliani left the building, without addressing the crowd.
Mr. Pokorny was able to follow Mr. Giuliani for more than a minute, yelling out about Rudy's pro-choice, pro-homosexual agenda. Again, Mr. Pokorny was not interrupted by police.
Giuliani officials had no idea how many pro-lifers were in the crowd, and how many more times Giuliani would be confronted. This might explain why Mr. Giuliani did not make any remarks - and left the meeting without addressing supporters.
Pro-lifers have scheduled confrontations with Rudy on every stop of his Florida Bus tour.
Video footage of the confrontations with Rudy is available upon request.
I agree with you. This manner of protest, is harmful to our cause.
Mebbe, but I sure would like an answer to my questions!
I was responding to a poster who accused me of that.
“This manner of protest, is harmful to our cause.”
_______________________________________________
OUR CAUSE ????
It’s not about YOU...
It’s about 50 million slaughtered unborn children...
Clearly you didn't answer it. One more time. It's a simple yes or no question:
Yes, or No: Do you agree with KeithCu's statement?
The first amendment gives you the right to stand in line and ask a question, but not to interrupt!!
You sincerely think it’s appropriate to take a phrase from 9/11, “let’s roll,” and use it to “give a whole new meaning” to Tiannamen Square? Wow.
Yes. I’m disappointed this thread has gotten so off track. The questions you posit are the very ones I think this thread should have been about.
But to even ask “was this negative?” or to state such (as I have, as that’s my view) has been interpreted as wanting to silence protest, accept abortion, crown Rudy Giuliani, and crush the pro-life movement. And worse.
What a waste.
As a political issue, the cause of life will continue to be stymied so long as those who support it will not honestly evaluate their course and make adjustments as appropriate.
But you have claimed multiple times, in multiple ways, that I have done nothing, or worse, impeded the pro-life cause for the last 35 years.
Please explain to me how you reached that conclusion.
I do and will speak out for them. But I will try to do so in a way that maximizes the chance for success, for a positive impact.
I will continually evaluate if what I am doing is helpful and beneficial, or how I need to change to make my speaking out for the unborn better addressed to my audience.
That’s what I am advocating here. But by giving my opinion that these protests were not effective, and were not positive-—an opinion upon which we may disagree-—I have been pilloried as a pro-abortionist, a Rudy supporter, a fascist, and so on into la-la land.
When a movement cannot reflect calmly upon the best ways to advance its cause, that’s a problem.
No, I don’t read minds like you do and I don’t know all about the inner workings of people who post on the internet.
But I will pray for you tonight, if you don’t mind. And I’d be very happy if you’d pray for me as well.
Thank you. I began with a very simple observation-—as you so succintly put it-—a concern about effectiveness, but that was viewed as some rant against the pro-life movement and a screed for Rudy Giuliani.
Sad.
No, it’s not a simple “yes” or “no” question.
I agree with KeithCu’s statement to the extent that if the “interruption” meets the threshold for constituting an interruption that keeps the speaker from exercising his right to free speech, then that interruption is not allowed.
That is why-—as happened even in this case-—protestors who continually “interrupt” (to the point of taking away the speaker’s right to speak or to the point of being disorderly) are hauled off by police. This is why the law can require licenses for protesting and can cordon off areas from protestors.
So, to sum up again (and all of the above I explained previously and in the post to which I referred you), if KeithCu was using “interrupt” in the venacular, then what the law calls a “mere” interruption of course would be tolerated. But if the “interruption” reaches the point of taking away the other guy’s right to speak, then it’s not allowed.
The point is that the speaker has a right to speak as well. How his right and the right of the protesters to speak is balanced depends, according to the law, on a whole variety of factors, including the venue, the time, the manner of protest, the audience and so on.
Have you ever noticed that occasionally in the State of the Union speech, for example, protestors in the gallery will “interrupt” and what happens? They are quickly hauled off. Why? Because they do not have the right to interrupt at that time and in that manner.
If you need more detail, ask and I will be glad to provide it.
Finally, however, let me say this: my point has never been about what people have the right to do. It has been about asking ourselves (those who care about the pro-life movement) what is an effective way to protest in these circumstances and what isn’t.
I happen to think this was not an effective protest and, in fact, that it is likely to backfire and actually strengthen Giuliani, not weaken him. Others think it was great.
Yet still others got bogged down, not in reasonably evaluating whether this was a positive or negative event, but in talking about how it was the protestors’ “right” to protest, as if anyone thinks otherwise.
Maybe because it’s unlawful to stand around an abortion “clinic” and talk to the people going in to have their babies killed.
I think Rudy should have been more patient and let the authorities deal with the protesters and gone in and did his rally
It looks like most of the protesters were standing along the curb and being peaceful.
A couple of them got out of line, and Rudy fled.
If they are going to continue to dog him in such a disruptive manner, he will eventually have to come up with a strategy to continue his campaign.
Well good.
Everyone chooses their battles and fights them in the best way they can.
I do think that 99.9% of the movement does calmly reflect on the best way to advance the cause of saving babies from being killed in the womb.
And yet that scenario of "interruption, was not what was described in any of the media reports.
That is why-—as happened even in this case-—protestors who continually “interrupt” (to the point of taking away the speaker’s right to speak or to the point of being disorderly) are hauled off by police.
HUH? Show me that report, would ya? I can't find that he was "interrupted" anywhere, let alone creating an environment where Rudy was unable to speak. The guy was riding in a parade! For every person yelling "baby killer," there were probably dozens more yelling "Go Rudy" (or whatever).
I happen to think this was not an effective protest and, in fact, that it is likely to backfire and actually strengthen Giuliani, not weaken him. Others think it was great.
You're entitled to your opinion, as are those who disagree with you. Frankly, I don't think it helped or hurt the pro-life movement but probably served to enlighten some voters as to Giuliani's support for abortion and funding thereof. I seriously doubt it would "strenghten Giuliani" except maybe he got a few more votes from pro-abortionists. I would guess he lost at least an equal amount from pro-lifers who were not familiar with his positions.
JAG: This is reasoning that typifies DU.
Perhaps you have never heard the teaching that not everything that is allowed is beneficial or helpful or edifying?
All the way back to #44 !!
I can see where your initial confusion came from, but I can't see how it took hundreds of posts to clear it up (if it is cleared up).
Let me elaborate on that first post to you so you can see that here's what I am saying and have been saying from the beginning.
KeithCu said that you were not allowed to "interrupt" (however he meant that word; I have posted in detail on this upthread).
You replied that the First Amendment applied to rallies.
I replied that your reasoning reminded me of DU. Here's how.
In my view, KeithCu's post simply posited that there were some limits on protesting at rallies. I took his point as that protests would not be allowed to the extent that they "interrupted" the rally. (See my fuller discussion on this; I know you took exception to what K said, but that's not relevant to this discussion right now.)
You came back with the First Amendment applies, and since you were saying that to REFUTE what K said, I took that to mean that you were saying the First Amendment allowed protests at rallies even if they interrupted the rally. (Please don't get bogged down in our disagreement on what "interruption" means at this point.)
I said that reminded me of DU thinking because whenever a liberal's speech is criticized, or someone disagrees with them, their come-back is that they are "allowed" to say it, it is their "right" to say it, and, further, by not "condoning" what they said, people are trying to "force them to shut up" and trying to "dictate" to them what to say and not say.
That is how you responded to K's post that, in his view, there were limits on protests at political rallies. And you continued to elaborate on that response throughout all your subsequent posts, to the point that each of the quoted words above in the DU line were actually used by you.
I then added a comment intended to convey that my view was that it wasn't important what was "allowed"---we all know free speech is protected by the Constitution---but it was important to evaluate how we exercise our free speech. Was this protest something that had a positive effect on the pro-life movement or a negative effect?
Now THAT would have been a helpful discussion. Instead, for merely suggesting that we ask ourselves that simple question, people who have no clue who I am or what I have done in relation to the pro-life movement or who I am supporting for president called me an abortion supporter, a fascist, and so on.
You really, really got stuck on proving your point that the First Amendment applies to political rallies. But that's obvious. Where you got off track was in assuming my comment on "let's evaluate whether this was helpful" was a defense of whatever it was K. had written. It wasn't. It really had nothing to do with what K. had written and I don't know how you got there from here. Or why you stuck to that for so many posts.
As for the other point, I'm sorry, but you have gone on repeatedly about how you will not impose your will and blah blah blah. But you have yet to answer my direct questions asking you to explain how simply disagreeing with an act of speech is "restricting" it or "dictating" or whatever.
Now that makes sense.
Thanks
I think Rudy should have stuck around for his event.
I agree with you.
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.