Posted on 05/30/2002 7:05:09 AM PDT by wkcoop
Let a speaker hold a crowd by his speech, and not jailing those who dissent. In meetings a more regular order is desired than a political speech -- and this was a political speech by Mr. Bush, even though he is the President. So in meetings there is less tolerance of repeated and vociferous speaking out or noising off -- but even in regular meetings some allowance for same should be made. That is if one understands freedom, respects the the minority opinion, and loves Liberty.
But there are some, and in history many, who seek a King that must be heard by all even by force, who desire a Nobility so that crass and discordant opinions may never appear in any public venue.
Those folks -- by the way -- when they are on elevators, sometimes get tips. But generally they are ignored.
Cut out your own tongue if so feared of using it to rebuke a public speaker you are. But not mine!
It's in the Texas state constitution. And, IIRC, the reason Texans puts laws into the state constitution traces back to Reconstruction....
And by golly, there are some idiots out there who should get a .45 inch hole between the running lights for doing so.
Cut out your own tongue if so feared of using it to rebuke a public speaker you are. But not mine!
I wouldn't cut your tongue out. I'd merely bill you for my wasted time. Warning: I bill 80 hours minimum, at $150 an hour. If it's after 5PM, it's double time; if after 8PM, it's triple. Each separate interruption of a meeting I'm attending is a separate billable event.
Disruptors actually seem to pick up the pace and make the supervisors want to get home sooner. All to the good.
I don't know what planet you are from. If that's how meetings work on your planet, then stay there. It doesn't work that way here on Earth.
Never heard one peep about the "1st Amend" then from anyone, eh?
...guess it all depends on who the POTUS "is" at the time, huh? ;^)
Please tell me why exactly stopping my local government from exacting more unconstitutional laws upon me by disrupting its "business" through my use of the First Amendment is a bad thing.
As I said, criminal charges seem severe, but the alternative could be far worse. The previous mention of Parliament was an excellent, if misplaced, example. The Britons elect people to shout down each other during the course of conducting "business" (government). However, I doubt you could find one MP who would appreciate or condone a British citizen jumping into the game. It's not about "free speech" any more than talking too loudly in a movie theater is. And if you want to call me on the private/public difference, then what's to stop someone from making political objections to what they see on the screen at the local Bijou?
And let's add one more thought. Most places have laws against disturbing the peace. How is screaming "bullshit" in the state legislature not that?
Disruption forces the hand of these petty tyrants and forces them to the point, and to a regular order per rules.
"One can scarcely have had much experience in deliberative meetings of Christians without realizing that the best of men, having wills of their own, are liable to attempt to carry out their own views without paying sufficient respect to the rights of their opponents."--Lieutenant Henry M. Robert, US Army Corps of Engineers
Yeah, the woman who told Clintigula that he "sucked" was not disrupting a public address--she simply expressed an opinion while he was out "pressing the flesh."
She and her husband spent a night in the slam and had to hire attorneys just because they expressed an opinion that, I might add, most of us here would love to say to his lieing, smarmy face.
So much for the 1st Amendment!!
Your rant loses something in the translation. There is no Sun King, there was no meal served, and no one was required to watch with admiration. All the speaker and audience expected was that the speaker be allowed to address the audience without being drowned out by disrupters or disrupted by people who grew up to believe that they are the center of the universe.
”Let a speaker hold a crowd by his speech, and not jailing those who dissent.”
You must have taken lessons in sophistry from Reuters. They refer to Palestinians who kill civilians as “activists.” The hooligan in question was not a dissenter, he was a heckler and a disrupter.
” In meetings a more regular order is desired than a political speech -- and this was a political speech by Mr. Bush, even though he is the President. So in meetings there is less tolerance of repeated and vociferous speaking out or noising off -- but even in regular meetings some allowance for same should be made. That is if one understands freedom, respects the the minority opinion, and loves Liberty.”
You have it backward. Meetings are a more appropriate venue for rough and tumble debate. At a formal speech, we are expected to listen. We are not invited to participate. The first thing that totalitarians of every stripe do is send hooligans to opposition meetings and speeches to disrupt. Grow up. Shouting down a speaker and heckling is not an exercise in free speech, it is an exercise of brutality. It is the mark of the totalitarian who uses the tendency of most people to avoid conflict to inflict his will on the majority. It is the method by which Leftists have come to dominate the Universities: the willingness to be uncivil to cow the majority who value civility.
I have nothing but contempt for those who hijack the venue of others to bray their own stupidities.
In neither case is criminal charges appropriate unless one physically resists being escorted from the meeting.
And so you show! That "venue" you claim, is a public one, my dearie, and a public speech was made, that to one free man's view begged a timely response which he did make. Hooray for him to hold his liberty out for us all to appreciate, yet that you, like Loretta Bobbitt, would chop it off at the nub, eh?
Fascinating. Where did you get these precise “rules?” Is one word or disruption OK? How about 2? How about 25? How did you poll “society” to see what “they” consider reasonable? Frankly, I’ve had it up to here with disrupters who are so self-centered as to believe that I, as part of an audience, want to hear their interruptions. If I am somewhere to hear a speech, I damn well don’t want to hear some foul-mouthed idiot put in his two cents. It is BEYOND high time that people stop putting up with crap like this. And I want to see a trial because simply being put out will not send the appropriate message.
First of all, I’m not your “deary.” I don’t associate with jerks. You may want to see a Catholic priest. There is a high probability you could get lucky.
Second, you have no idea whether the venue is a public one. For all you know, tickets were sold. Whether it is or not is not the issue. The members of the audience were there to hear a President speak. The President was there to deliver a speech. The heckler was not part of the program and detracted from what the audience was there to hear. And if you think yelling “bullshit” is engaging in debate, you are a few cards short of a full deck.
Heckling is not a “timely response.” As I have pointed out several times, it is not the means by which free people engage in debate. It is the means by which totalitarian hoodlums squelch free expression. And, in order to protect liberty and free speech, I will be more than happy to squelch ignorant jerks who believe that yelling “bullshit” in the middle of a speech is the essence of what makes us free.
Sorry, but I happen to live in a municipality so regulated that were I to defend my home against an armed burglar I'd be within my federal and state constitutional rights to shoot the bastard dead -- and at the same time be charged by my local municipality for illegally discharging a firearm within borough limits. And my taxes being cut? You can forget that. Hasn't happened in 20 years and won't happen anytime soon. Oh ... and since I'm in the process of jumping through hoops to apply for a building permit ... just to apply, mind you ... to build a freaking deck on my own property, I don't think "environmental" or zoning regulations being decreased to free up my building capacity will be coming in this borough during my lifetime.
As far as I'm concerned, a municipality with such asinine and counter-Constitutional logic deserves to hear "bullshit" screamed again and again in council meetings. And besides, if "bullshit" can be said on TV and the radio and be protected by the first amendment, it damn sure can be said amongst a meeting of government thugs.
Much would depend on the venue. Is it a public space, is it a political townhall type meeting, etc.
The "way" you determine the rules is the same way we determine all things of such variant nature-- by civil lawsuit.
As I said, criminal charges are way out of line here.
On NOW at RadioFR!
6pm PDT/9pm EDT- Listen to Radio FreeRepublic live tonight, as Luis Gonzales interviews G. Edward Griffin and discusses his book 'The Creature From Jekyll Island. A Second Look At The Federal Reserve'. Find out the true nature of our monetary system and how it affects 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.