Who is wanting you to shut up? Not me. I can’t believe all the whining from those who can’t stand it that not everyone thinks these protests are a good idea.
I most certainly do want to “debate the merits on honesty and truth” and whatever you meant by that.
But you refuse to even acknowledge what the issue is!
I said you are sounding like the Dixie Chicks and explain why and all you do is pontificate that you “shall not impose MY will on others in the arena of public speech.”
Which is exactly what I said constituted DixieChixism. Will you address that, please?
(1) Please explain HOW discussing whether an act of speech has a positive or negative effect constitutes “impos[ing] YOUR will on others.”
(2) Please explain HOW discussing whether an act of speech has a positive or negative effect constitutes “wanting to FORCE others to shut up.”
I think this post just proved you’re a lawyer.
Let's take it back to the beginning, shall we?
To: KeithCuall you do is pontificate that you “shall not impose MY will on others in the arena of public speech.”you must be okay with protesters interrupting rallies.
I had no idea that First Amendment rights were suspended at rallies.
32 posted on 01/13/2008 5:18:44 PM EST by nicmarlo
To: nicmarlo
The first amendment gives you the right to stand in line and ask a question, but not to interrupt!! What about everyone else’s right to hear and speak?
44 posted on 01/13/2008 5:23:43 PM EST by KeithCu
To: nicmarlo; KeithCu
I had no idea that First Amendment rights were suspended at rallies
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?
71 posted on 01/13/2008 5:38:12 PM EST by fightinJAG
To: fightinJAG; KeithCu
Perhaps you have never heard the teaching that not everything that is allowed is beneficial or helpful or edifying?
The statement he proffered had absolutely NOTHING to do with what was "beneficial, or helpful, or edifying" and EVERYTHING to do with what was "allowed." First Amendment rights are NOT suspended when a politician gets off the bus, or walks toward a building, or even plans to speak in front of a crowd.
We do not live in Marxist China.
76 posted on 01/13/2008 5:41:20 PM EST by nicmarlo
You are the one who is "pontificating" about how, where, when, and in what manner someone should be "allowed" to speak, as did the poster who got banned. You are the one who continually wants to bring up the "manner and method" by which YOU think free speech is EFFECTIVE. That is besides the point, and NOT what I addressed to the poster to begin with.
As far as the "effective" manner and method, I have already stated what I may or may not PERSONALLY do. So, why is it you wish to now bring up the Dixie Chix, which I have already also addressed?