Protesting and free speech

[vraiblonde]

Somehow this has been extended to "be a nuisance and force people to listen to your rantings." Apparently Chicago has put an ordinance in place that protesters can't be within so many blocks of the convention center. This seems reasonable to me - people are going for the convention, not to listen to a bunch of Nazis scream obscenities. Protest groups, of course, think this is a violation of their "free speech".

So #1, nobody is preventing them from expressing themselves. They can rant all day long, throw themselves on the floor, light each other on fire, whatever. They just can't do it when it impedes the event.

#2, I notice that when it's a protest against Democrats, these cities are all "you can't do that!" but when it's...oh....say...shutting down a major interstate because you hate Donald Trump, cities say it's their right to "free speech".

So normally I'd laud Chicago for trying to keep disruptions to a minimum, but that's not what they say when Dembots are rioting against Republicans. So screw them. I hope the protesters make an absolute mess of that convention.

But the fact remains that the 1A only covers your right to free speech; it doesn't allow you to force people to listen or have to run a rioting gauntlet in order to get to their destination. Other people have rights too, not just psychotic progs.

 

[Clem72]

Somehow this has been extended to "be a nuisance and force people to listen to your rantings." Apparently Chicago has put an ordinance in place that protesters can't be within so many blocks of the convention center. This seems reasonable to me - people are going for the convention, not to listen to a bunch of Nazis scream obscenities. Protest groups, of course, think this is a violation of their "free speech".

So #1, nobody is preventing them from expressing themselves. They can rant all day long, throw themselves on the floor, light each other on fire, whatever. They just can't do it when it impedes the event.

#2, I notice that when it's a protest against Democrats, these cities are all "you can't do that!" but when it's...oh....say...shutting down a major interstate because you hate Donald Trump, cities say it's their right to "free speech".

So normally I'd laud Chicago for trying to keep disruptions to a minimum, but that's not what they say when Dembots are rioting against Republicans. So screw them. I hope the protesters make an absolute mess of that convention.

But the fact remains that the 1A only covers your right to free speech; it doesn't allow you to force people to listen or have to run a rioting gauntlet in order to get to their destination. Other people have rights too, not just psychotic progs.

They could paint a trump mural or something on the street and then all the convention goers that drive or walk on it are committing hate crimes, right?

 

[SamSpade]

I generally believe - most of the time - the point of a protest is to show the persons most able to make a change that there are ENOUGH of you to make a difference. Such as boycotting buses and thus hurting the businesses. Showing up in large numbers so that an elected official might realize - they vote.

And the other is - to persuade. If you can March peacefully while your adversaries sic dogs on you, fire up the water cannons and beat you with sticks - you PROVE beyond all doubt who the bad guy is to any undecided person.

Being violent, destroying property, antagonizing innocents, blocking roadways and defacing statues and monuments proves one thing beyond any doubt - your side is a bunch of criminals and no one reasonable should listen to you.

 

[Monello]

I generally believe - most of the time - the point of a protest is to show the persons most able to make a change that there are ENOUGH of you to make a difference. Such as boycotting buses and thus hurting the businesses. Showing up in large numbers so that an elected official might realize - they vote.

And the other is - to persuade. If you can March peacefully while your adversaries sic dogs on you, fire up the water cannons and beat you with sticks - you PROVE beyond all doubt who the bad guy is to any undecided person.

Being violent, destroying property, antagonizing innocents, blocking roadways and defacing statues and monuments proves one thing beyond any doubt - your side is a bunch of criminals and no one reasonable should listen to you.

The BLM riots were all about looting the local CVS & AutoZone.

 

[Ken King]

Somehow this has been extended to "be a nuisance and force people to listen to your rantings." Apparently Chicago has put an ordinance in place that protesters can't be within so many blocks of the convention center. This seems reasonable to me - people are going for the convention, not to listen to a bunch of Nazis scream obscenities. Protest groups, of course, think this is a violation of their "free speech".

So #1, nobody is preventing them from expressing themselves. They can rant all day long, throw themselves on the floor, light each other on fire, whatever. They just can't do it when it impedes the event.

#2, I notice that when it's a protest against Democrats, these cities are all "you can't do that!" but when it's...oh....say...shutting down a major interstate because you hate Donald Trump, cities say it's their right to "free speech".

So normally I'd laud Chicago for trying to keep disruptions to a minimum, but that's not what they say when Dembots are rioting against Republicans. So screw them. I hope the protesters make an absolute mess of that convention.

But the fact remains that the 1A only covers your right to free speech; it doesn't allow you to force people to listen or have to run a rioting gauntlet in order to get to their destination. Other people have rights too, not just psychotic progs.

Except that the city was only granting permits for a site 3 miles away, which brought about suits that were settled by the city allowing the protestors to be in Union Park. To me it makes no sense to protest so far away that the intended audience of the protest cannot see/hear them.

Impeding the event? The protestors cannot block entry or force attendees to walk through the masses, but they can use sound amplifiers/signs/etc to get the message out to their audience.

And those cities that have disparate policies are wrong in that regard, if it is allowed for some it is allowed for all.

Pretty sure it does, as long as it is done peacefully. Intimidation by making attendees walk a gauntlet would/should be disallowed.

 

[Ken King]

The BLM riots were all about looting the local CVS & AutoZone.

And the key, as you indicate, is that they weren't protests, they were riots and rioting is already against the law.

 

[SamSpade]

And the key, as you indicate, is that they weren't protests, they were riots and rioting is already against the law.

Yup. Peaceful protest my ass.

I like how when Cuomo said “who said protests have to be peaceful?” , Kayleigh McEnany replied “that would be the First Amendment “.

 

[vraiblonde]

Except that the city was only granting permits for a site 3 miles away, which brought about suits that were settled by the city allowing the protestors to be in Union Park. To me it makes no sense to protest so far away that the intended audience of the protest cannot see/hear them.

If people wanted to see/hear them, they'd go to Union Park.

1A gives you the right to free speech; it doesn't say that others have to listen to you and certainly doesn't say you can force them to listen. Leftists own almost all the media in this country. You can't turn on the TV or go on the internet without being bombarded with these people's message. Not content with that, now they want to barrage you when you're just trying to attend an event. Like someone's gonna go, "Oh, I was going to attend the convention, but these screaming obnoxious people have changed my mind!"

They are not demanding their free speech rights; they are demanding everyone listen to them. And those are two very different things.

The protestors cannot block entry or force attendees to walk through the masses,

And yet experience tells us they will do exactly that.

 

[vraiblonde]

That said, **** the Democrats. These are their monsters so ha ha ha.

 

[SamSpade]

Hate to admit it - but I’m hoping for a repeat of Chicago in ‘68.

 

[Ken King]

If people wanted to see/hear them, they'd go to Union Park.

1A gives you the right to free speech; it doesn't say that others have to listen to you and certainly doesn't say you can force them to listen. Leftists own almost all the media in this country. You can't turn on the TV or go on the internet without being bombarded with these people's message. Not content with that, now they want to barrage you when you're just trying to attend an event. Like someone's gonna go, "Oh, I was going to attend the convention, but these screaming obnoxious people have changed my mind!"

They are not demanding their free speech rights; they are demanding everyone listen to them. And those are two very different things.



And yet experience tells us they will do exactly that.

A little twisted logic going on here. The people that the protestors want to hear what they have to say are the convention attendees (which as I understand is by invite only). No one is being forced to listen to them and I suspect that very few (other than reporters) will pay them any mind at all.

 

[vraiblonde]

A little twisted logic going on here. The people that the protestors want to hear what they have to say are the convention attendees (which as I understand is by invite only). No one is being forced to listen to them and I suspect that very few (other than reporters) will pay them any mind at all.

So? That's not a right last time I looked. We only have a right to speak, we don't have a right to be heard.

And if people have to walk past them to get to the convention they most certainly are being forced to listen.

My logic is spot on. Yours, however, could use some work.

 

[herb749]

Hate to admit it - but I’m hoping for a repeat of Chicago in ‘68.

These people are not going to be denied. Hope they crash the party.

 

[Ken King]

So? That's not a right last time I looked. We only have a right to speak, we don't have a right to be heard.

And if people have to walk past them to get to the convention they most certainly are being forced to listen.

My logic is spot on. Yours, however, could use some work.

Care to show where I said that was a right? The right to free speech can only be restricted if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, otherwise it is restricted under a very narrow window as to time, place, and manner. There are many cases on the books that lay this out (if you care to understand the issue).

 

[vraiblonde]

Care to show where I said that was a right?

Perhaps in the future you can speak to the topic and reply to me regarding what I *actually* said. Then there will be no misunderstanding.

 

[Tech]

I'm a bit confused and maybe you guys can help. Got this picture from Chicago, are these the protestors or the delegates to the DNC?

 

[vraiblonde]

are these the protestors or the delegates to the DNC?

Both

 

[glhs837]

Care to show where I said that was a right? The right to free speech can only be restricted if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, otherwise it is restricted under a very narrow window as to time, place, and manner. There are many cases on the books that lay this out (if you care to understand the issue).

So if I want the President to hear me, the law requires me to have access to him?

 

[Ken King]

So if I want the President to hear me, the law requires me to have access to him?

Now you are just being stupid because that wasn't said or inferred at all. The Constitution (1st Amendment) says you can peacefully assemble and voice your issue, it provides nothing to indicate that anyone has to listen or that you are guaranteed access to your audience , but you know that, right? The permits that were agreed to do not allow access to the convention, just close enough so that their message can be heard by those going to the convention. Not the 3 miles away that the city initially had approved.

Perhaps in the future you can speak to the topic and reply to me regarding what I *actually* said. Then there will be no misunderstanding.

I'll speak to what you said. No one is being forced to listen anymore than people that live near an airport are forced to hear the aircraft noise. It simply is what it is.

The protestors have obtained permits to have their rally/demonstration/whatever. If one happens to encounter them on the way to the DNC. and the crowd isn't obstructing/harassing/assaulting them then there is no problem.

 

[vraiblonde]

just close enough so that their message can be heard by those going to the convention. Not the 3 miles away that the city initially had approved.

Which is the whole point being made.

There is no constitutional right to be heard. Period. If you disagree, you are simply wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's fact.