GruntII
member
Herself said:
true but each day it looks better and better.
Last edited:
NH: More Free Staters arrested in spat with Feds
- Thread starter DadaOrwell2
- Start date
- Status
true but each day it looks better and better.
DRZinn
Member
The very concept of a "free speech zone," besides being oxymoronic, is also an egregious violation of the right to free expression.
It really is as simple as that, and I don't know why people put up with it.
I think what Armed Bear was getting at is not that the authorities were right, but that the protesters made a bad strategic move getting arrested, most likely deliberately.
It really is as simple as that, and I don't know why people put up with it.
I think what Armed Bear was getting at is not that the authorities were right, but that the protesters made a bad strategic move getting arrested, most likely deliberately.
Free speech does not mean the freedom to disrupt others at will.
-- Just saw DocZinn's post -- addendum: I think "free speech zones" are Orwellian, too. But there's a bigger picture here. Thanks, Doc!
These protests are usually designed to disrupt, not to express. Personally, I wouldn't find it to be a violation of free speech if San Francisco had the balls to round up the jerks who paralyze their entire city periodically by blocking the streets and sidewalks, and toss them in the slammer if they don't disperse. See, the people who live and work in San Francisco ALSO have the right to go about their business in peace, and that right is not being respected or protected by the city government or law enforcement, and it's generally not the protesters who are paying the salaries of said people.
If people are denied the right to petition for redress -- a separate right from freedom of speech and considered important enough to enumerate -- then that is the issue at hand and should be addressed. Childishly disrupting the day-to-day business of the government costs me money and accomplishes nothing.
Furthermore, Libertarians who make us look like a bunch of college hippie throwbacks make it a LOT harder for those of us who want to be serious about this thing to, say, get a mayor elected. We might have been able to do it -- even NPR seemed to think so -- but it was just too damned easy, in the end, for the R's and D's to marginalize our candidate by association.
So here's the deal. You may have freedom to express whatever, but DON'T expect to be given a free pass for every stupid or alienating thing you do, by the people you are hurting -- people who share your aspirations of freedom.
-- Just saw DocZinn's post -- addendum: I think "free speech zones" are Orwellian, too. But there's a bigger picture here. Thanks, Doc!
These protests are usually designed to disrupt, not to express. Personally, I wouldn't find it to be a violation of free speech if San Francisco had the balls to round up the jerks who paralyze their entire city periodically by blocking the streets and sidewalks, and toss them in the slammer if they don't disperse. See, the people who live and work in San Francisco ALSO have the right to go about their business in peace, and that right is not being respected or protected by the city government or law enforcement, and it's generally not the protesters who are paying the salaries of said people.
If people are denied the right to petition for redress -- a separate right from freedom of speech and considered important enough to enumerate -- then that is the issue at hand and should be addressed. Childishly disrupting the day-to-day business of the government costs me money and accomplishes nothing.
Furthermore, Libertarians who make us look like a bunch of college hippie throwbacks make it a LOT harder for those of us who want to be serious about this thing to, say, get a mayor elected. We might have been able to do it -- even NPR seemed to think so -- but it was just too damned easy, in the end, for the R's and D's to marginalize our candidate by association.
So here's the deal. You may have freedom to express whatever, but DON'T expect to be given a free pass for every stupid or alienating thing you do, by the people you are hurting -- people who share your aspirations of freedom.
DRZinn
Member
That's exactly it. Now in the minds of the public, "libertarians" are those dope-smoking idiots who cause a lot of trouble over stupid stuff and get on everyone's nerves. Thanks, guys.
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Yeah, what hippies, thinking they have a right to peaceably assemble..........
DRZinn
Member
No-one's arguing that they didn't have the right. If it makes you feel better, though, keep opposing what we're not supporting, and you'll look like you won the debate.
Thalinor
Member
ArmedBear said:
+1 Pick and choose your battles. Sitting screaming on the pavement as you get dragged off to jail only makes you look like an idiot. Second, you then run the risk of loosing your right to own firearms, vote, etc...
There is a time, place, and way of doing something for every different scenario. Being “Fanatical” or “Extremist” usually isn’t the way...
I agree with the cause but this is not the way to go about changing things.
gc70
Member
GTSteve03 said:
Oh, that's totally hilarious - a constitutional right to a personal gripe session with the President! Let's see how that would work.- 4 years X 365 days X 24 hours X 60 minutes X 60 seconds = 126,144,000
Here's an idea about petitioning the government... put it in writing and drop it in a mailbox.
Let's clarify a few things...
Freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble come with common-sense limits in any community. Just ask whether those rights begin to infringe on the rights of others to do the same things.
Free speech means that no one shall be charged with a crime because of the CONTENT of their speech. However, if I walk up to your bedroom window, even if I'm on my own property, at 2AM and proceed to recite the works of Shakespeare through a megaphone, I can be arrested. I think we want it that way, because I am clearly infringing on YOUR right to peacefully enjoy your own property. So freedom of speech does NOT mean that the time, place, and method of communication cannot be regulated so as to protect the rights of those others who want to go about their business lawfully.
The right to peaceably assemble does NOT mean the right to assemble on the property of another without his/her consent. It does NOT imply the right to "assemble" with the intent to disrupt the lawful activities of others who are not part of your group. It does NOT mean that you have the right to force others to listen to your message. It does not imply the right to coerce anyone to do anything.
There is a legitimate need for government, like any effort involving many people, to act in an organized fashion. I am no lover of organization, and Robert's Rules of Order can drive me nuts. But I recognize that, without such rules, a tiny ultraminority of people without moral restraint or basic etiquette can paralyze an entire country simply by making it impossible for anyone to do anything. This is not "peaceable." Sorry.
As much as government might piss me off on many, many levels, I still don't want my country, state or city to be controlled by a few nutjobs who have not thought through where a place that condoned constant coercive disruption will end up.
And by the way, I'm not bashing Free Staters. These guys happened to be Free Staters, but it's their actions I think were wrong.
Freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble come with common-sense limits in any community. Just ask whether those rights begin to infringe on the rights of others to do the same things.
Free speech means that no one shall be charged with a crime because of the CONTENT of their speech. However, if I walk up to your bedroom window, even if I'm on my own property, at 2AM and proceed to recite the works of Shakespeare through a megaphone, I can be arrested. I think we want it that way, because I am clearly infringing on YOUR right to peacefully enjoy your own property. So freedom of speech does NOT mean that the time, place, and method of communication cannot be regulated so as to protect the rights of those others who want to go about their business lawfully.
The right to peaceably assemble does NOT mean the right to assemble on the property of another without his/her consent. It does NOT imply the right to "assemble" with the intent to disrupt the lawful activities of others who are not part of your group. It does NOT mean that you have the right to force others to listen to your message. It does not imply the right to coerce anyone to do anything.
There is a legitimate need for government, like any effort involving many people, to act in an organized fashion. I am no lover of organization, and Robert's Rules of Order can drive me nuts. But I recognize that, without such rules, a tiny ultraminority of people without moral restraint or basic etiquette can paralyze an entire country simply by making it impossible for anyone to do anything. This is not "peaceable." Sorry.
As much as government might piss me off on many, many levels, I still don't want my country, state or city to be controlled by a few nutjobs who have not thought through where a place that condoned constant coercive disruption will end up.
And by the way, I'm not bashing Free Staters. These guys happened to be Free Staters, but it's their actions I think were wrong.
DadaOrwell2
Member
They are now scheduled to be in court March 1, charged with disorderly conduct.
On the other hand, people have been handing them money to thank them for what they did. And they'll have support at court, probably a combination of supporters inside and protestors supporting them outside.
On the other hand, people have been handing them money to thank them for what they did. And they'll have support at court, probably a combination of supporters inside and protestors supporting them outside.
joab
Member
Just like Tookie
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
ArmedBear said:
What they were doing has been OK for 215 years. It wasn't until Clinton took office that a standing president didn't have to listen to a few jeers.
ctdonath
Member
Someone openly advocating arguably treasonous activity within yards of POTUS is properly immediately profiled as a threat thereto.
I deeply respect the 1st Amendment.
I also deeply respect the fact that out of 300,000,000 people, it is very possible for a devoted nut (either end of the spectrum) to get close enough to the President to cause an extremely serious problem very fast; see Art's reference to IWB draw time.
While I don't think euphamistic "free speech zones" are Constitutional, I _do_ think the Secret Service has a power & duty to tell obvious nutcases to back off.
And yes, I think someone advocating secession in close proximity to the man tasked with maintaining national unity is a nutcase. The Free State project is going to self-destruct very quickly if members are going to promote secession; I though the point of Free State is to restore freedom to the states, not to vacate national participation entirely.
DadaOrwell2
Member
ArmedBear said:
Yes that is one path, and God bless you for doing *something* (you were the one who says you helped LP folks in the San Diego election,right? )
Well that's great! especially if you had some success in controlling the debate. But there are a lot of things to do in achieving liberty, not all libertarians will do the exact thing you do. I just hope that they will be more supportive of your efforts than you are of ours.
DadaOrwell2
Member
<<So, I am a little bemused by the 'Free Speech Zone' complaints. Since when was crashing someone else's party a "right?">>
since when was holding a sign *not* a right? these folks were on a public street corner inhabited by other civilians, it was a bus stop ! It was not a secure area.
If you want to attack them, attack what they *did,* not what you are pretending they did.
since when was holding a sign *not* a right? these folks were on a public street corner inhabited by other civilians, it was a bus stop ! It was not a secure area.
If you want to attack them, attack what they *did,* not what you are pretending they did.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Well, that was my understanding too, but I guess this guy wanted secession. Nothing "treasonous" about that. Anymore than it was treasonous to oppose union in late 18th century America. Our first loyalty is to our hearth and home, then to our extended family, then to communities in which we live, then to the State in which we live. Only after we have satisfied our duty of loyalty in those regards ought we to begin to look at our duty to the Union of the States of America, called the United States. In the same way we owe greater loyalty to the United States than we do to the United Nations, even though we are quite definitely members of that world organization. Patriotism is first local. First we are Floridians, Virginians and Ohioans. Only subordinate to that are we citizens of the larger union of States, then to the United Nations. That's what patriotism meant when the Founders wrote about it. That's what it still should mean.ctdonath said:
DadaOrwell2
Member
JohnBT wrote:
<<According to the articles the protesters were arrested by the locals, not the Feds.>>
Feds made the call. Their first warning came from an SS guy.
<<According to the articles the protesters were arrested by the locals, not the Feds.>>
Feds made the call. Their first warning came from an SS guy.
gc70
Member
You have clearly mistaken a general statement of philosophy with a specific "attack." Allow me to expand on the former and then oblige you with the latter.DadaOrwell2 said:
[this is philosophy]
The Constitution's First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech and the right of peaceful assembly. When people assemble for a political purpose, there are often folks who want to make opposing opinions heard - and that pits two Constitutional rights against each other. A neat solution to that dilema is to separate the two groups. The protestors can express their opinions in one spot without disrupting the peaceful assembly of listeners in another spot.
[this is an attack]
But a solution that respects both the speech and assembly rights of the First Amendment wasn't good enough for your friends.
Your friends could not simply walk across the street and protest from there. They had to throw a tantrum and insist that they could protest from any spot they darned well pleased, regardless of whether it would disrupt the rights of other people to peaceful assembly. So they were arrested... for acting like brats.
I have no sympathy for your friends' faux outrage. Their arrest gave them what they wanted - a platform for media coverage of their position.
CAnnoneer
Member
+1 Herself
We often disagree, but in this thread we are 100% on the same page.
If the president does not want to hear what his fellow-Americans want to say to him, he should stay home. A public event is a public event. If he wants to have a meeting of supporters, he should reserve an enclosed structure, e.g. a convention center or a football stadium, and admit only by invitation. But they would never do that, because they know how ridiculous it is and they know they cannot claim public support for the Fearless Leader.
Excusing limitations on free speech by security concerns is pathetic and dangerous. Where does it end? Next thing they will claim is that expressing effusive disagreement with the president in public is a security breach because it causes emotional distress to the VIP...
The neo-Victorian crap Herself pointed out is very real, very well spread, and very damaging to the life force of our society. It is a sign of weakness, decadence, impracticality, and willful disregard for reality.
As our society becomes more and more complex, there is and will be an increasing number of issues to disagree upon. The only way to preserve national unity and individual freedoms then is to adopt a philosophy of libertarianism and learn to respect other people's freedoms even if we disagree with their ideas.
We often disagree, but in this thread we are 100% on the same page.
If the president does not want to hear what his fellow-Americans want to say to him, he should stay home. A public event is a public event. If he wants to have a meeting of supporters, he should reserve an enclosed structure, e.g. a convention center or a football stadium, and admit only by invitation. But they would never do that, because they know how ridiculous it is and they know they cannot claim public support for the Fearless Leader.
Excusing limitations on free speech by security concerns is pathetic and dangerous. Where does it end? Next thing they will claim is that expressing effusive disagreement with the president in public is a security breach because it causes emotional distress to the VIP...
The neo-Victorian crap Herself pointed out is very real, very well spread, and very damaging to the life force of our society. It is a sign of weakness, decadence, impracticality, and willful disregard for reality.
As our society becomes more and more complex, there is and will be an increasing number of issues to disagree upon. The only way to preserve national unity and individual freedoms then is to adopt a philosophy of libertarianism and learn to respect other people's freedoms even if we disagree with their ideas.
GTSteve03
Member
You know, I was totally wrong.gc70 said:At one complaint per second, with no time off, a President could cover somewhat less than half of the population during a 4-year term, and that's not counting folks with multiple complaints. Yep, that would just about ensure that the President stayed busy enough listening to complaints to not have any time to do any damage while in office. Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea, but it's not a constitutional right.
- 4 years X 365 days X 24 hours X 60 minutes X 60 seconds = 126,144,000
Here's an idea about petitioning the government... put it in writing and drop it in a mailbox.
The President was out in a PUBLIC rally, but why should he even listen to the concerned citizens of the country in which he is currently leading. I suppose anyone that might have something they want to say that's not in agreement with government policy should just **** and GBTW.
Yeah, mail it to the government. I'm sure the President doesn't have anything better to do than sit around and read the mail from the citizens. If he's not willing to listen to them at a PUBLIC RALLY, what makes you think he'll sit around in private and read their mail?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
As far as Constitutional rights under the First Amendment, yeah, the protesters have a right to gather and protest. Where is it written that they have the right to proximity to the President? Where?
The Secret Service has the duty to maximize the President's safety. They thus control the route and the area in view of the President. Not only do they have to deal with snipers and close-range pistoleros, they now have the problem of suicide bombers and IEDs.
Given the history of "peaceful protests" which were anything but peaceful, I'm not all surprised, and not all that perturbed at how the Secret Service approaches its duty. The TV cameras show up and "peaceful" is shot all to Hades.
I've already lived through one Presidential assassination and the attempts on Ford and Reagan. Don't need any more...
Art
The Secret Service has the duty to maximize the President's safety. They thus control the route and the area in view of the President. Not only do they have to deal with snipers and close-range pistoleros, they now have the problem of suicide bombers and IEDs.
Given the history of "peaceful protests" which were anything but peaceful, I'm not all surprised, and not all that perturbed at how the Secret Service approaches its duty. The TV cameras show up and "peaceful" is shot all to Hades.
I've already lived through one Presidential assassination and the attempts on Ford and Reagan. Don't need any more...
Art
gc70
Member
Okay, GTSteve03, I was a bit tough with you. Seriously though, the President doesn't go around the country to have discussions with the people, he goes to make speeches - he talks and we listen. With the number of people in the country, it would be impractical to do otherwise.GTSteve03 said:You know, I was totally wrong.
The President was out in a PUBLIC rally, but why should he even listen to the concerned citizens of the country in which he is currently leading. I suppose anyone that might have something they want to say that's not in agreement with government policy should just **** and GBTW.
Yeah, mail it to the government. I'm sure the President doesn't have anything better to do than sit around and read the mail from the citizens. If he's not willing to listen to them at a PUBLIC RALLY, what makes you think he'll sit around in private and read their mail?
Yes, mail your written complaints to the President. The President does not read complaint letters, but he does have staff members who read, classify, and catalog every single complaint. And the President does get summary reports of complaints; that, along with polling results and news summaries, is how the President finds out what the people think.
BTW, what I have described is not callousness, but a simple fact of life for any executive of any large organization where the number of constituents, clients, or customers becomes too large for the executive to be able to deal with individually.
IndianaDean
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 541
Well, I'm Libertarian, and I don't indulge in any drugs, and I do not consume anything with alcohol in it.
I won't go near someone who wants to go shooting somewhere if they've even had one beer or one glass of wine. Firearms are too dangerous to chance even that small an amount, AFAIC.
I won't go near someone who wants to go shooting somewhere if they've even had one beer or one glass of wine. Firearms are too dangerous to chance even that small an amount, AFAIC.
It is a very long-standing tradition of the Republic, Mr. Eatman -- and any President who hasn't the guts to face it is no President I'd care to vote for.
Did you hear any gripes from Reagan? Ford? --Pfui, even FDR understood it and stood up to it.
...But wait! Once again, simple, peaceful protest, wavin' signs an' wearin' T-shirts, has gotten conflated with taking pot-shots at the Chief Executive. It ain't the same thing! Stop trying to pretend that it is.
Moonbats with signs are just moonbats with signs. It is the ones without signs and lacking visible battiness about which the SS - and den mothers of all sexes -- ought to worry, possibly even to bedwetting excess. But of course, the Lee Harvey Oswalds of this world are -- whine! -- soooo armed and soooo scary! Much safer to segregate the easily-IDed sign-wavers, maybe rough 'em up a bit. They've already shown their determination to avoid violence, which makes them way softer targets.
I am not sure what makes me more sick, such gutlessness on the part of all levels of government, or the speed and facile grace with which their apologists rush in to defend the behavior. You should be ashamed, sir. Ashamed.
--Herself
Did you hear any gripes from Reagan? Ford? --Pfui, even FDR understood it and stood up to it.
...But wait! Once again, simple, peaceful protest, wavin' signs an' wearin' T-shirts, has gotten conflated with taking pot-shots at the Chief Executive. It ain't the same thing! Stop trying to pretend that it is.
Moonbats with signs are just moonbats with signs. It is the ones without signs and lacking visible battiness about which the SS - and den mothers of all sexes -- ought to worry, possibly even to bedwetting excess. But of course, the Lee Harvey Oswalds of this world are -- whine! -- soooo armed and soooo scary! Much safer to segregate the easily-IDed sign-wavers, maybe rough 'em up a bit. They've already shown their determination to avoid violence, which makes them way softer targets.
I am not sure what makes me more sick, such gutlessness on the part of all levels of government, or the speed and facile grace with which their apologists rush in to defend the behavior. You should be ashamed, sir. Ashamed.
--Herself
GTSteve03
Member
I know, and I'm probably extending my hyperbole a bit much, but I'm just frustrated that someone that claims to represent the entire country is so willing to shut himself off from anyone that disagrees with him.gc70 said:
It seems to me that everything Bush (and I'm not singling him out here, I was just not that aware during Clinton's era, I was a bit younger then) does is designed to shield him from all this. Pre-screened press interviews, "free speech zones" and lots of vacation time away from the public eye.
It just irks me to no end! :banghead:
- Status