My teenager argues like this:
You state a principle using a hypothetical fact situation and he comes back with an objection that the facts were not accurate.
You asked me if I agreed or disagreed with K’s assertion that rallies could not be “interrupted.”
That is simply an assertion of what the law is. It has nothing to do with whether any particular rally (i.e., this one involving Rudy) was interrupted. So it was not relevant for you to “come-back” with the fact that the particular rally was not (or was) interrupted.
We are talking solely about whether the law allows protestors to interrupt rallies. Got it?
Now as for your factual point about whether there was or was not an interruption, you seem to think there was not. But at least one protester was hauled off. So that tells me that the police believed that the protester’s conduct constituted an interruption such that hauling him off was warranted.
Maybe we don’t agree with the police on that, but the law says if a rally is being interrupted (probably “disrupted” is a better term to use), the police can haul the protester off. They hauled him off so, at least in their minds, they had sufficient grounds to determine that he was disruptive, a security risk or whatever.
I’m not saying the police are always right on this. I’m just saying if they hauled him off, it’s because they thought they could convince someone they were right in doing so.
So it’s not relevant whether you or I think they didn’t have grounds. And you didn’t ask me that. You asked me whether the law allows rallies to be interrupted/disrupted and I replied that no, it does not. And therefore K was correct.
I respect your opinion on the effectiveness of the protest.
Nope. That isn't what I asked. More below.
We are talking solely about whether the law allows protestors to interrupt rallies. Got it?
Let me try to clarify why we aren't communicating. You are the one that focused in on this "interrupt" concept. I didn't. That was not my focus, nor was it what "we were talking solely about."
One more time, I must quote KeithCU's statement:
The first amendment gives you the right to stand in line and ask a question, but not to interrupt!!In reading that sentence, the word "interrupt" generated the mildest of my reactions. The whole sentence, particularly that one only has the right to "stand in line and ask a question" was just another reminder of the efforts of many to stifle free speech and to mute all opposition. While there are legitimate limits on free speech (e.g. fire in the theater), nowhere is it written that we must be polite when expressing our opinions in public. No one has to stand in line. The form of our speech does not need to be in the form of a question. (One can argue the effectiveness of various approaches--but effectiveness was not the message of KeithCu's post.)
Bottom line: I found KeithCu's post really, really offensive that he believed that someone at a rally did not have the right to speak out in opposition to a candidate or to cite that candidates position on issues -- that instead they only had a right to ask a question and only after standing in line. That was just ridiculous and contrary to the freedoms we all enjoy. Nicmarlo seemed to be reacting to the same thing in his posts which struck me as right on the mark.
I would have reacted the same way if the activists were rallying on immigration issues, gun rights, or any host of issues. It was the implication that these folks did not have the right to speak out as they did that I reacted to.
Now, if anywhere in any of these reports had they cited that Giuliani attempted to speak and was actually interrupted to the point of not being able to deliver his message, I would have understood someone being removed. But, again, that was NOT reported and that is NOT what KeithCu said. Keith took exception to those people speaking out AT ALL. And that was flat out WRONG, IMO.
As you can see, I feel pretty strongly about this issue. The capitalization of letters is not intended to be screaming at you but just to emphasize that we shouldn't allow politicians of any stripe to go unchallenged. I hope that clarifies a few things for you. Sorry it took 400 posts to get to this point.