Forums | MacLife

Our taxes at work!  (remember, Nicaragua and Soviet Russia had freer presses than we do)

The more they tighten their grasp the more systems will slip through their hands.

Just remember: this kind of action has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the protests! Free speech remains free.

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Just remember: this kind of action has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the protests! Free speech remains free.

I don't know that anyone has ever argued that vigilance isn't necessary nor that free speech rights are always respected and don't have to be defended.

What a convoluted sentence.

But aren't you okay with "free speech" zones? I thought you said that once.

Tallgeese wrote:

source

Police raided a rental hall used by a group organizing protests at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Friday.
...
As many as 30 police officers entered with guns drawn, according to witnesses in the building.
...
"We are now accused of a simple fire code violation," the statement said.

Can't take any chances with those liberal terrorists around the GOP! Free Speech Zones are for the weak Democrat Party, not good enough for the Law and Order Party!

Guns drawn?

That ridiculous.

They should have just burned the place down and been done with it.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I'm trying to remember whether I asked you if "crowd control" had anything whatsoever to do with the zones, and if so what your response might have been.

Do I believe that there's a need to control crowds of protesters for reasons of safety at such events?  Yes I do.  You'll note that not even the ACLU attempts to argue that there should be zero regulations or enforcement at such events.  They generally attempt to help work out an appropriate plan. 

Care to paste in something to that effect? Because I have trouble believing you actually think the practice might have a connection to crowd control.

Oh right, I just love seeing speech squashed for the hell of it. 

The term "free speech zone" is meaningless; it's the details that are important.  Do I believe that protesters in front of abortion clinics should have to keep clear from those coming in and out, and be prohibited from blocking pathways or entrances?  Yeah, I do. 

What you want me to do is reject the term "free speech zone."  That's fine.  I reject the term because it's stupid and meaningless.  I do believe a "protesting area" or whatever you'd like me to call it can be constitutional.

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I'm trying to remember whether I asked you if "crowd control" had anything whatsoever to do with the zones, and if so what your response might have been.

Do I believe that there's a need to control crowds of protesters for reasons of safety at such events?  Yes I do.  You'll note that not even the ACLU attempts to argue that there should be zero regulations or enforcement at such events.  They generally attempt to help work out an appropriate plan.

That would be fine if I or anyone else on the planet were to believe the choices are the status quo or nothing. And you're not stupid enough to believe I was suggesting any such thing.

You have crowds. You keep the crowds back. Six feet, ten feet, whatever is required to ensure security.

You don't fence off all but the party stalwarts in a goddamned stockade.

Care to paste in something to that effect? Because I have trouble believing you actually think the practice might have a connection to crowd control.

Oh right, I just love seeing speech squashed for the hell of it. 

The term "free speech zone" is meaningless; it's the details that are important.  Do I believe that protesters in front of abortion clinics should have to keep clear from those coming in and out, and be prohibited from blocking pathways or entrances?  Yeah, I do. 

What you want me to do is reject the term "free speech zone."  That's fine.  I reject the term because it's stupid and meaningless.  I do believe a "protesting area" or whatever you'd like me to call it can be constitutional.

So you're okay with it as long as it's not called a "free speech zone?"

ShnickyShnack wrote:

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I'm trying to remember whether I asked you if "crowd control" had anything whatsoever to do with the zones, and if so what your response might have been.

Do I believe that there's a need to control crowds of protesters for reasons of safety at such events?  Yes I do.  You'll note that not even the ACLU attempts to argue that there should be zero regulations or enforcement at such events.  They generally attempt to help work out an appropriate plan.

That would be fine if I or anyone else on the planet were to believe the choices are the status quo or nothing. And you're not stupid enough to believe I was suggesting any such thing.

You have crowds. You keep the crowds back. Six feet, ten feet, whatever is required to ensure security.

You don't fence off all but the party stalwarts in a goddamned stockade.

Hence the protestation in the press. I also bet there is a lawsuit in the works.

No one here ever said abuse never happens but there are typically repercussion when it does.

Care to paste in something to that effect? Because I have trouble believing you actually think the practice might have a connection to crowd control.

Oh right, I just love seeing speech squashed for the hell of it. 

The term "free speech zone" is meaningless; it's the details that are important.  Do I believe that protesters in front of abortion clinics should have to keep clear from those coming in and out, and be prohibited from blocking pathways or entrances?  Yeah, I do. 

What you want me to do is reject the term "free speech zone."  That's fine.  I reject the term because it's stupid and meaningless.  I do believe a "protesting area" or whatever you'd like me to call it can be constitutional.

So you're okay with it as long as it's not called a "free speech zone?"

No, he said he's ok with it when the protest area is limited to actual protecting safety without squashing free speech, called a stupid name or not.

You obvious haven't seen an abortion protest then. Without a certain amount of separation between the protestors  and the clinic & patients someone can get injured and their is a history of it happening. People get just as worked up where money, politics, and other factors are concerned.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

You obvious haven't seen an abortion protest then. Without a certain amount of separation between the protestors  and the clinic & patients someone can get injured and their is a history of it happening. People get just as worked up where money, politics, and other factors are concerned.

And what's the law with abortion protests? Do they employ "protest areas" outside abortion clinics?

They do, right? After all, some crazies have killed abortion providers.

Yes, they do in fact.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

You obvious haven't seen an abortion protest then. Without a certain amount of separation between the protestors  and the clinic & patients someone can get injured and their is a history of it happening. People get just as worked up where money, politics, and other factors are concerned.

And what's the law with abortion protests? Do they employ "protest areas" outside abortion clinics?

They do, right? After all, some crazies have killed abortion providers.

Yes, they do in fact.

Link?

I thought they just had to stay back a certain distance.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

They do in so much as the protest area is X amount of distance away from the clinic, workers, and clients, not blocking the entryways, sidewalks, and streets.

Are they fenced in and kept out of sight?

And that is what people keep telling you they find objectionable about the current implementation of free speech zones.
Too far removed.
That there are areas away from the speaker or entrance don't bother us in the least and in fact protect everyones rights.