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?
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.