Repugs insist on oath for demos to hear Cheney speech.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Brownshirt.

Whaa??? He is a brownshirt and the little twerps who actually, literally, use brownshirt tactics of disrupting and shouting down dissent are not?

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Brownshirt.

Actually, I think that the Brownshirts did things that would be illegal under the Constitution of the US.

I'm about a liberal as you and lucy, but I think that Dewey makes valid legal points on this one.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by samclem

Actually, I think that the Brownshirts did things that would be illegal under the Constitution of the US.

I'm about a liberal as you and lucy, but I think that Dewey makes valid legal points on this one.

Not when he says that dissent should be stifled because he finds it annoying.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

Whaa??? He is a brownshirt and the little twerps who actually, literally, use brownshirt tactics of disrupting and shouting down dissent are not?

A Vice President giving a stump speech represents dissent. Dissent with what? How can the government be the dissenter?

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Not when he says that dissent should be stifled because he finds it annoying.

Please do point out where I said dissent should be stifled. I support the right to protest. I also support my right to go about my business without interference. You have the right to speak. You don't have the right to compel me to listen.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

A Vice President giving a stump speech represents dissent. Dissent with what? How can the government be the dissenter?

Dissent from them. You are avoiding the question.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

Please do point out where I said dissent should be stifled. I support the right to protest. I also support my right to go about my business without interference. You have the right to speak. You don't have the right to compel me to listen.

Frankly, I've seen enough speakers shouted down that I genuinely loathe the heckler's veto, so much so that I cheer efforts to preemptively stop it from happening.

Preemptively means before it happens, right?

In other words, you think that dissent should not only be squelched when it happens, but that anyone who even looks like they might dissent should be stifled.

There is no such thing as a right to not be heckled.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

Dissent from them. You are avoiding the question.

Political dissent means dissent from the status quo or the majority or from authority. The government can't be the dissenter, at least not in any sense of the word as it is coventionally used regarding politics.

The protestors are the dissenters. Those who squelch them are the...ok, I won't call them brownshirts, how about tanshirts.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Preemptively means before it happens, right?

In other words, you think that dissent should not only be squelched when it happens, but that anyone who even looks like they might dissent should be stifled.

I think that is valid for the organizers of a particular event. They are under no requirement to provide a platform for their opponents. It is not squelching dissent for them to tightly control the members of their audience.

Nor is it squelching dissent for law enforcement to ensure that the daily business of a city will go on unimpeded -- that key roads and bridges are not blocked, that pedestrians are not harassed, and that people can generally get from point A to point B unimpeded. The world doesn't stop just because you planned a protest. You have the right to speak, but not the right to compel me to listen.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is no such thing as a right to not be heckled.

There is a right to freely associate, and with it a correlative right to exclude, including the right to exclude those who you suspect might disrupt your event. But that's neither here nor there; this isn't a constitutional question, for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

No, I'm not talking about rights in the constitutional sense. I'm talking about values, namely the value of free and open discourse, and how that value is tarnished when the heckler's veto is exercised. Shouting down your opponent is not conducive to such discourse, for reasons which should be fairly obvious.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Political dissent means dissent from the status quo or the majority or from authority. The government can't be the dissenter, at least not in any sense of the word as it is coventionally used regarding politics.

The protestors are the dissenters. Those who squelch them are the...ok, I won't call them brownshirts, how about tanshirts.

Holy crap! You are still avoiding! Fine, forget the stupid question about the meaning of dissent.
Let me rephrase:

Whaa??? He is a brownshirt and the little twerps who actually, literally, use brownshirt tactics of disrupting and shouting down those that disagree with them are not?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Another thing- and I should have said this to begin with rather than chasing that fucking red herring about "shouting down speakers" (poor, poor Cheney my heart fucking breaks. )

We're not even talking about heckling or disruptions, we're talking about keeping out anyone who disagrees even silently. Wearing a Kerry/Edwards shirt does not infringe on Cheney's right or ability to speak, does it? Why the fick should someone like that be keppt out of any official appearanns on the tax payer dime by an elected official?

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

We're not even talking about heckling or disruptions, we're talking about keeping out anyone who disagrees even silently. Wearing a Kerry/Edwards shirt does not infringe on Cheney's right or ability to speak, does it? Why the fick should someone like that be keppt out of any official appearanns on the tax payer dime by an elected official?

Although I don't think that it was there intent (instead only to keep out hecklers_, so what? They still have a right to free-association.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

We're not even talking about heckling or disruptions, we're talking about keeping out anyone who disagrees even silently. Wearing a Kerry/Edwards shirt does not infringe on Cheney's right or ability to speak, does it? Why the fick should someone like that be keppt out of any official appearanns on the tax payer dime by an elected official?

1. This isn't an official appearance; it's a campaign stop. Cheney is not acting in his capacity as Vice President in this instance.

2. How do you know they're planning on remaining silent? You have a magic mind-reading device?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

Holy crap! You are still avoiding! Fine, forget the stupid question about the meaning of dissent.
Let me rephrase:

Your question contains a false supposition. The protestors are not using "brownshirt" tactics. Brownshirts are functionaries of a police state. They are governmental tactics, not populist ones.

Protesting and heckling is just plain old dissent. In order to be a brownshirt you have to have authority. You have to have power.

Your question is fucking bullshit.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Your question contains a false supposition. The protestors are not using "brownshirt" tactics. Brownshirts are functionaries of a police state. They are governmental tactics, not populist ones.

Protesting and heckling is just plain old dissent. In order to be a brownshirt you have to have authority. You have to have power.

Your question is fucking bullshit.

I don't care who the hell is backing you or who you represent. That is just as dumb as saying it is impossible for a black man to be racist since he is a minority.

Besides, when the brownshirts did most of their shouting down and intimidation tacticts they were not in power. They were just another minority party, they had as much power and authority as the left-wing brownshirts of today. I am sure that then you would have supported their acts of dissent against the Weimar Republic.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

What's bullshit is your stupid attempts to Godwinize this thread.

"Brownshirts" have come to colloquially mean a group that uses violence or threats of violence as a tactic to squelch political dissent. Just because the original group were part of the government doesn't mean the term can't be applied to non-state actors.

Quit playing stupid definitional games and address the substantive points raised.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

1. This isn't an official appearance; it's a campaign stop. Cheney is not acting in his capacity as Vice President in this instance.

2. How do you know they're planning on remaining silent? You have a magic mind-reading device?

1. There is no fucking difference. The Veep doesn't stop being the Veep whenever it's convenient to him. Is he using tax payer dollars to pay for the appearance. Is paying for his own security? I'm sorry, I don't buy this chickenshit parsing of what is "official" and what isn't. If he's not acting as Veep them let him pay for his own fucking venues, his own security and his own transportation.

2. How do I know you aren't going to go on a killing spree? Aren't we supposed to wait until someone actually does something wrong before we fuck with their rights. Are we using fucking "pre-crime" tactics already.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

What's bullshit is your stupid attempts to Godwinize this thread.

"Brownshirts" have come to colloquially mean a group that uses violence or threats of violence as a tactic to squelch political dissent. Just because the original group were part of the government doesn't mean the term can't be applied to non-state actors.

Quit playing stupid definitional games and address the substantive points raised.

Who said anything about violence or threats? I'm just talking about wearing a t-shirt or maybe doing some heckling.

If someone commits violence or makes threats, by all means bust their asses.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

1. There is no fucking difference. The Veep doesn't stop being the Veep whenever it's convenient to him. Is he using tax payer dollars to pay for the appearance. Is paying for his own security? I'm sorry, I don't buy this chickenshit parsing of what is "official" and what isn't. If he's not acting as Veep them let him pay for his own fucking venues, his own security and his own transportation.

Bullshit. Cheney was a private citizen in 2000, and it would be unquestionably appropriate for him to make such exclusions at campaign stops at that time. There is no reason to treat him differently now. Dick Cheney did not check his speech and associative rights at the door when he assumed office.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

2. How do I know you aren't going to go on a killing spree? Aren't we supposed to wait until someone actually does something wrong before we fuck with their rights. Are we using fucking "pre-crime" tactics already.

No one's being charged with a crime here. They're just being excluded from an event, and they're not being excluded by state action. Private entities, like the RNC, have every right to take whatever legally-available steps they feel are necessary to ensure their events go off smoothly.

And again, no one's rights are being interfered with. There is no inherent right to attend a Dick Cheney campaign speech.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Who said anything about violence or threats? I'm just talking about wearing a t-shirt or maybe doing some heckling.

Hey jackass -- you're the one who used the term in the first place, remember? You called me a brownshirt.

And since neither I nor Dick Cheney have suggested using violence or intimidation, that label was totally inappropriate. Quit Godwinizing.

[WernhamHogg]

At what point will these guys do something so desparate, stupid, and chickenshit that even the most faithful Republicans will realize they're backing the wrong horse?

[Squink]

Ignoring all this brownshirt, heckling, shouting, speech nonsense, this loyalty oath requirement is really quite heartening. If the republicans want to behave like a bunch of elitist country-clubbers holding back the ravaging hordes of unwashed american voters, let them. Let them put the lie to all that big tent bullshit they spewed during the last presidential election. The smaller they make their tent, the better I like it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

Hey jackass -- you're the one who used the term in the first place, remember? You called me a brownshirt.

And since neither I nor Dick Cheney have suggested using violence or intimidation, that label was totally inappropriate. Quit Godwinizing.

I think the government using uniformed officers to check dissent at the door and demand oaths of allegiance is at least intimidating.

I know better than to argue with a lawyer about the law. You may be right about a difference in capacity for campaign appearances and "official" ones.

I'm sorry I called you a brownshirt. I meant it only in the most hyperbolic and figurative sense. I know you're not a fucking nazi. I apologize for Godwinization.

I also think the pledge signing and the "free speech zones" are fucking cowardly and that they have nothing to do with security.

Do you remember the chicken who used to haunt Bush Sr. rallies during the '92 election, calling him "Chicken George?" GHWB used to get a big kick out of the chicken and got into some verbal jousting with him. He laughed at the chicken and got the crowd to laugh with him. That was cool. That showed a sense of humor and a tolerance for dissent. He didn't have security herd the chicken off to a free speech zone. That's the way to deal with heckling. It's only one more way that I think the current president is not the man his father was. I didn't vote for Bush One but I respected him and sometimes even liked him.

[Zoe]

Dewey, I intend no offense to you personally, but I am really surprised by your posts.

At this appearance, he is not appearing in an official capacity. He is appearing as a candidate for office.

Did you ever wonder why he would only want to appear before those who have already decided to support him?


Is this any different from the Democrats? Did you see the fenced-off area in Boston? How many "Bush-Cheney" shirts do you think would be allowed in to a Kerry campaign stop?[/quote]


Dewey, this is the first time that I can ever remember where people with "opposing t-shirts" weren't allowed to be on the scene!!! And this is my 16th Presidential campaign! This really is not an ordinary maneuver. If I ever found that a candidate for President had required anyone to sign such a pledge, I would not vote for her or him ever.

I did not approve of protestors being kept at a distance for the Democratic Convention and I think that the Democrats should have chosen a place with protesting actually encouraged. Peaceful protest has always been part of the American way.

But more to the point: who cares?

Damn, Dewey. I don't understand why you dont care.

I've heard anecdotes from the Democratic side...<snip>

I've seen it happen far too often.

Where? When? Do you really mean "often"? I have not seen hecklers bring speakers to a full and complete stop. Perhaps I could have forgotten one or two times, but I wouldn't forget it if it happened often. Why not allow peaceful protest and just remove anyone who wants to continue to interrupt or stop the speech altogether?

I had rather have a President that can handle a heckler with a witty response or a quick rebuff.

I get the feeling that people are losing sight of what's normal politics and what's repression.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think the government using uniformed officers to check dissent at the door and demand oaths of allegiance is at least intimidating.

Cite for the proposition that government officials are checking these things? Event security and RNC personnel would be doing those things.

The police could, of course, remove pepole at the RNC's request, and that's fine -- folks the RNC doesn't want at their events are trespassing. But the RNC is the one actually deciding who stays and who goes.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm sorry I called you a brownshirt. I meant it only in the most hyperbolic and figurative sense. I know you're not a fucking nazi. I apologize for Godwinization.

Accepted.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I also think the pledge signing and the "free speech zones" are fucking cowardly and that they have nothing to do with security.

The pledge thing isn't a security issue so much as a preventing hecklers issue. It's probably an ineffectual way to stop said hecklers, but the campaign is well within their rights to try to prevent such disruptions.

The free speech zones may well have gotten a bit absurd in recent times. But there really are issues of security and free ingress/egress to consider, as well as issues of disruption to the lives of a city's residents. I commute into NYC every day, and I know I'm not looking forward to the RNC descending on us this month. And this is a bipartisan thing -- the Dem's speech area in Boston resembled one of the Soviet reeducation centers in Red Dawn.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Do you remember the chicken who used to haunt Bush Sr. rallies during the '92 election, calling him "Chicken George?" GHWB used to get a big kick out of the chicken and got into some verbal jousting with him. He laughed at the chicken and got the crowd to laugh with him. That was cool.

I agree that was cool. It was also one guy, and he didn't really get noticed by Bush until the press picked up on his story. Unfortunately, today we've got rafts of protestors cut from the WTO mold whose stated goal is to shut things down. As so often happens, a few asshats ruin things for everybody.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Did you ever wonder why he would only want to appear before those who have already decided to support him?

When John Kerry starts giving speeches before the Club for Growth, come talk to me. Until then, I think it safe to say that all politicians only want to appear before friendly crowds.

Originally Posted by Zoe

Where? When? Do you really mean "often"? I have not seen hecklers bring speakers to a full and complete stop. Perhaps I could have forgotten one or two times, but I wouldn't forget it if it happened often. Why not allow peaceful protest and just remove anyone who wants to continue to interrupt or stop the speech altogether?

As I noted earlier, a heckler does not need to completely destroy a proceeding to succeed. A significant disruption coupled with footage of him or her being dragged off by security accomplishes the heckler's goals. Why should a campaign play into the heckler's hands? They're under no obligation to give their opposition a platform.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Dewey

I think it safe to say that all politicians only want to appear before friendly crowds.

No, it isn't safe to say that. Politicians have at least as much an interest in neutralizing, if not converting, their opposition as they have in basking in adulation - that's especially true in a campaign. It may well be that those pols whose policies and results cannot withstand scrutiny can only afford to appear before "friendly crowds", examples being Bush's Iraq war speeches to the Army War College and the USAF Academy commencement, though.

A significant disruption coupled with footage of him or her being dragged off by security accomplishes the heckler's goals. Why should a campaign play into the heckler's hands?

That too is not an unavoidable result. To the extent that the heckler's "comments" are seen as reflecting a statement of an opposition viewpoint instead of a simple shoutdown attempt, the rudeness of his efforts can discredit that viewpoint. Further, a deft response to a heckler can easily work to a politician's favor. Here's how The Big Dog did it, for example:

President Clinton, heckled by an AIDS activist but cheered by AIDS patients at a local hospital, said Wednesday in observance of World AIDS Day that the United States must accelerate its efforts to find better treatments and an eventual cure for the disease. ...

In the midst of the President's remarks, a 19-year-old heckler approached him, shouting: "Talk is cheap and we need action!" Calling Clinton "Slick Willie," a name Republicans tried to pin on him during last year's election campaign, the heckler continued: "The Republicans were right! We should have never trusted you! You are doing nothing while we die!"

Clinton, appearing unruffled by the disturbance, responded: "That's OK. It's all right. I don't take it personally. . . . I'd rather have that man in here screaming at me than have him give up altogether."

Here's how not to respond:

Last month, in response to a razzing by a heckler, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called Dean the candidate for “hot, angry people that aren’t rational and are screaming and hollering.”

[Apos]

All I can say is: in my area Cheney comes and speaks to tiny pre-chosen audiences where there are almost as many protestors as attendees. They rent the biggest auditoriums and then curtain them off to make them look full when they could have just rented smaller venues to fill. The Kerry-Edwards events, however, have big rallies. They have actually been on the buses on the bus tour most of the time, instead of running phantom buses with no actual VIPs on them to fake the idea. They don't ask for loyalty oaths: they hand out free tickets to anyone that asks for them. They let the abortion people bring their giant pictures of bloody fetuses and wave them around all they want (outside the secured area: nobody gets to bring in signs or bags that the SS hasn't pre-screened). The protestors shout as loud as they can so that other people who came to hear Kerry and Edwards speak can't hear what they came to hear. K/E haven't been going to safe areas or meeting only with supporters.

No approach is illegal. But yeah, one approach is definately pretty chickenshit.

[Excalibre]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

God, I hate this fucking attitude. Like the heckler's veto is a valid exercise of free speech. What a load of bullshit.

Whether or not the speech is worthwhile or not (anyone shouting down a speech is a total loser, obviously) has nothing to do with its protection under the law. The fact that they're trying to use their freedom of speech to prevent others' use of theirs is what makes heckling Mr. Cheney is the reason it's not a valid exercise of free speech.

Originally Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

Drowning out the words of another speaker -- effectively denying them their free speech rights by simply screaming louder -- is not what the American ideal of free political discourse is all about.

And just to be sure, because your post comes dangerously close to committing this common fallacy (and I note that Mockingbird goes ahead and commits it anyway): this isn't a first amendment issue. The government isn't making a distinction here. The RNC and the Bush-Cheney campaign are private actors, and can set the rules of entry to their events as they see fit, including efforts to keep out hecklers.

Yes, the method chosen here is a bit silly and probably ineffectual. But let's not paint this as some kind of affront to free speech, because that's clearly not the goal. The goal, in fact, is to protect the free speech rights of the speaker from disruption.

Needless to say, I agree with you. As a raging lefty pinko queer, I think the Republicans have less than pure motives, and I agree with the above analyses of their (quite effective) techniques for stifling dissent in their ranks.

But this has nothing to do with free speech. As everyone who's graduated middle school ought to have learned by now, our rights are not without limits. You have every right to say whatever you like about Dick Cheney - you may, for example, declare that he's an ugly, soulless, shrivelled, goat-felching lump of mucus. Or that he acts like that because he hasn't gotten laid in several decades. But your right to speak doesn't extend to some right to use any forum you may wish to speak. Your free speech rights are not being violated when the local paper declines to publish your letter to the editor, nor are you being subject to fascist oppression if Wal-Mart won't let you hang around their entrances handing out literature.

I'm so tired of the way people complain that any time they're not allowed to force their views on others, it's a free speech violation. Hey, Mockingbird, you wouldn't be so quick to defend the rights of abortion clinic protesters to harass women at the entrances, would you? Does Fred Phelps get to enter into a gay funeral to start screaming about hellfire and damnation? Of course not. You wouldn't like this version of free speech in the slightest. Society would turn into something ruled by the loudest, most obnoxious people around. Imagine if our whole country was like the audience on Jerry Springer.

Originally Posted by elucidator

And, yes, point of fact, I think a "Bush-Cheney" shirt wearer would be "allowed" to be present at a Dem gathering, leastwise, I've not heard of any being ejected. Have you? The Dems are not nearly the control freaks that the Pubs are, it is simultaneously thier biggest strength and biggest weakness.

Have you ever been to a political event? When Howard Dean came to town during primary season, I had the misfortune of sitting near some idiots who'd snuck in with pro-Bush signs. They were quiet and not within view of the cameras, and the place was so crowded they couldn't have been hustled out. But given the irritation of the security people present, I'm quite certain they wouldn't have gotten in wearing Bush-Cheney t-shirts. And why should they? I don't want assholes like that disrupting Democratic events.

Sometimes I think some of you people take off your blue- or red-tinted glasses long enough to look at these things fairly. Yeah, the pledge was a jackass move on the Republicans' part, but no one has the right to try to disrupt another group's assembly.

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

Whaa??? He is a brownshirt and the little twerps who actually, literally, use brownshirt tactics of disrupting and shouting down dissent are not?

Muad'Dib, I'll refrain from speculating here that you may be suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Suffice it to say, "Nazi" and "Fascist" and similar insults play to the fact that governments in Germany and Italy actively oppressed speech. Fascism is when an authority prevents dissent. The speech of those in power is inherently not "dissent" - they may disagree with the small group of ragtag protesters, but it's only dissent if it's breaking with the positions of the folks running the show.

So the lefties are not, whatever their faults, "brownshirts" - they're not using government power to stifle opposition, since they couldn't possibly do so. Maybe a more apt comparison would be with the Viet Cong.

Originally Posted by Diogenes

1. There is no fucking difference. The Veep doesn't stop being the Veep whenever it's convenient to him. Is he using tax payer dollars to pay for the appearance. Is paying for his own security? I'm sorry, I don't buy this chickenshit parsing of what is "official" and what isn't. If he's not acting as Veep them let him pay for his own fucking venues, his own security and his own transportation.

2. How do I know you aren't going to go on a killing spree? Aren't we supposed to wait until someone actually does something wrong before we fuck with their rights. Are we using fucking "pre-crime" tactics already.

Jesus, Dio, I expect better than this from you. He wasn't acting in an official capacity. A campaign stop is most assuredly not financed by the government (except indirectly, through public campaign funds that are distributed among both candidates). If this was a campaign appearance (I forget by now what it actually was) than obviously they were paying for their own venues, security, and transportation. He still has the right to his private life as a public official - what's next? Your right to speak freely in his living room when he's enjoying a snifter of brandy in the company of two or three friends? Obviously there are times when he's Veep and times when he's Dick Cheney.

And yeah, I agree with point number two.


To reiterate the central issue, no one has any right to force others to host a forum for their speech. You can stand on the street corner and scream about the coming of Armageddon all you like, but you aren't being 'repressed' if they don't permit it at the city council meeting, much less at a private event like a campaign appearance. Rights only exist up until they start interfering with others' rights, and then it gets much more complicated. You don't get to make others listen to your speech, though, or make them provide a space for you to speak in.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Politicians have at least as much an interest in neutralizing, if not converting, their opposition as they have in basking in adulation - that's especially true in a campaign. It may well be that those pols whose policies and results cannot withstand scrutiny can only afford to appear before "friendly crowds", examples being Bush's Iraq war speeches to the Army War College and the USAF Academy commencement, though.

Am I the only old coot who gets flashbacks of LBJ in the months before he announced he wouldn't seek re-election?

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally Posted by Excalibre

Whether or not the speech is worthwhile or not (anyone shouting down a speech is a total loser, obviously) has nothing to do with its protection under the law.

It's a good thing I said nothing of the kind.

Did you even bother to read my posts? I've said several times that this isn't a constitutional issue, pointed out that to say as much is a common fallacy (one committed by other posters in this very thread, in fact). Few things annoy me more than appeals to constitutional law when such appeals are inapplicable.

And I said that explicitly several times. See, e.g., post #28 (my first in this thread), 29, and 59. Jesus, you even quote me on that point later in your post. I'm not sure how much more clearly I could state that I was talking about free speech as an American value rather than as a facet of constitutional law.

Please try to pay closer attention next time.

[SolGrundy]

Maybe they made everybody take an oath because they were tired of Cheney being the only one who was swearing.

Did somebody already do that joke? I haven't been paying an attention to the thread.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by Excalibre

Muad'Dib, I'll refrain from speculating here that you may be suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Suffice it to say, "Nazi" and "Fascist" and similar insults play to the fact that governments in Germany and Italy actively oppressed speech. Fascism is when an authority prevents dissent. The speech of those in power is inherently not "dissent" - they may disagree with the small group of ragtag protesters, but it's only dissent if it's breaking with the positions of the folks running the show.

So the lefties are not, whatever their faults, "brownshirts" - they're not using government power to stifle opposition, since they couldn't possibly do so. Maybe a more apt comparison would be with the Viet Cong.

I can't belive this. People keep avoiding what I said and keep quibling over the definition of a word.

First off, you are all wrong about the meaning of dissent. Whether or not anyone is in power is irrelevent to its usage.

Secondly, the brownshirts were not always in political power. The brownshirts did not use political power untill they won it in elections after several years. They got that way by bullying and shoting down other folks. They started out as just a bunch of young political radicals in the streets, just like many of the leftists of today.

[Harborwolf]

Nope sol, you were the first. Good SHow

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by SolGrundy

Maybe they made everybody take an oath because they were tired of Cheney being the only one who was swearing.

Did somebody already do that joke? I haven't been paying an attention to the thread.

I once saw a board that had an embeded rimshot button that could be pasted into a post. It would be really cool if we had that.

[Zoe]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brownshirts

Brown Shirt or brown·shirt (broun )
n.
A Nazi, especially a storm trooper.
A racist, especially a violent, right-wing one
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brownshirts

Using "Brownshirt" in reference to a Liberal is a contradiction in terms -- similar to calling Conservatives "left-wing." The term "Brownshirt" should be reserved for the extreme ultra right-wing.

[Excalibre]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

It's a good thing I said nothing of the kind.

Did you even bother to read my posts? I've said several times that this isn't a constitutional issue, pointed out that to say as much is a common fallacy (one committed by other posters in this very thread, in fact). Few things annoy me more than appeals to constitutional law when such appeals are inapplicable.

And I said that explicitly several times. See, e.g., post #28 (my first in this thread), 29, and 59. Jesus, you even quote me on that point later in your post. I'm not sure how much more clearly I could state that I was talking about free speech as an American value rather than as a facet of constitutional law.

Please try to pay closer attention next time.

Jesus, man, calm down. I was agreeing with you, remember? I was just trying to make the point that the worthiness of the speech is irrelevant here - the Republicans have every right, at their events, to ban anything from uninformed college kids wearing signs to Noam Chomsky giving an erudite lecture on international politics. I'm sorry if I seemed to be putting words in your mouth; it wasn't on purpose.

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

I can't belive this. People keep avoiding what I said and keep quibling over the definition of a word.

First off, you are all wrong about the meaning of dissent. Whether or not anyone is in power is irrelevent to its usage.

Secondly, the brownshirts were not always in political power. The brownshirts did not use political power untill they won it in elections after several years. They got that way by bullying and shoting down other folks. They started out as just a bunch of young political radicals in the streets, just like many of the leftists of today.

Whatever. You know perfectly well the implications of both of those terms and you also know that the Democrats are not comparable to Nazis. It's a stupid, childish thing to say in a political debate, hence the universal disgust with it (embodied in Godwin's Law.) You want to argue like pubescent moron, and then justify it with semantic quibbling, well, I can't stop you. But it just goes to show what kind of debater you are. And, frankly, I don't think you want your opponents associating these arguments with your side. You already have Ann Coulter bringing you shame.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

....They started out as just a bunch of young political radicals in the streets, just like many of the leftists of today.

You just keep thinking, Maud, that's what you're good at.

[Muad'Dib]

Whatever. You know perfectly well the implications of both of those terms and you also know that the Democrats are not comparable to Nazis. It's a stupid, childish thing to say in a political debate, hence the universal disgust with it (embodied in Godwin's Law.) You want to argue like pubescent moron, and then justify it with semantic quibbling, well, I can't stop you. But it just goes to show what kind of debater you are. And, frankly, I don't think you want your opponents associating these arguments with your side. You already have Ann Coulter bringing you shame.

You are the ones doing all of the stupid semantic quibbling.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by elucidator

You just keep thinking, Maud, that's what you're good at.

You guys just keep avoiding the actual subject at hand and raising irrelevant semantic red-herrings. You are great at that.

[SPOOFE]

Using "Brownshirt" in reference to a Liberal is a contradiction in terms -- similar to calling Conservatives "left-wing."

So you're going on record as saying that liberals never use violent or intimidation tactics to get what they want? What happens, you guys break out in hives? Get really bad gas, if you raise your fist? Or perhaps a monstrous sneezing fit?

Hmm. That explains why kleenex sales doubled immediately after Gulf War II started...

[Diogenes the Cynic]

To me it's not a distinction of left and right but a question of authority. "Brownshirts" are governmental functionaries who squelch dissent by the populace. It's fucking stupid to say that the governement is the dissenter.

It's also fucking stupid to say that someone wearing a Kerry/Edwards shirt is suppressing anyone else's free speech or amounts to "shouting down" a speaker or that it constitutes a disruption.

I also notice on [url=www.drudgereport.com[/url] that protestors were permitted to chant "four more years" at a Kerry rally in Milwaukee today.
Were those guys brownshirts? Are Dewey and Maud outraged about those guys. was Kerry a victim? Kerry's response:

"I want to thank George Bush for sending the goons here tonight to excite us to do a little more work."

That's how you deal with protestors. You make a joke. You don't screen them for their loyalty at the door. The fact that people were heckling Kerry is actually very encouraging to me. It means that Kerry is not afraid of dissent. It means he has a soine. It means he's not a chickenshit.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

And again, no one's rights are being interfered with. There is no inherent right to attend a Dick Cheney campaign speech.

You're being very sloppy counselor. Cheney can set the bars for attendance at his events(as a private actor) but these bars are not nearly as flexible as you are claiming. Let me ask a quick question, could or could not Mr Cheney stipulate "white people only" as a requirement for admission to his speech? "No Women allowed"?

Consider again your above quoted statement. Perhaps modification to a form similar to the following would be more appropriate. There is no inherant right to attend a Dick Cheney campaign speech. Free association and the private nature of the event allow selection criteria to be created to limit/select the attendees, PROVIDED these criteria do not unduly burden a protected class.

I refer you to bajillions of instances of case law regarding private clubs trying to bar African-Americans or women on basis of their race/gender.

Enjoy,
Steven

[elucidator]

Don't do it, Stevie! Don't! Never, ever, ever provoke Dewey on a point of law, he'll bring down an avalanche of stark staring decisis on your sorry head! Alan Dershowitz was here for a while, left sobbing into his hanky...

You've been warned.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Don't do it, Stevie! Don't! Never, ever, ever provoke Dewey on a point of law, he'll bring down an avalanche of stark staring decisis on your sorry head! Alan Dershowitz was here for a while, left sobbing into his hanky...

You've been warned.

I ain't skeered. Plus I'm going on vacation for a couple weeks any time now(soon as the wife calls). If "people who want to use their freedom of speech in a way the organizer doesn't like" is legally different in some significant way from "people who look a way the organizer doesn't like or have the organs the organizer doesn't like" to the point where one can be legally excluded and the other can not then this would seem to be a deficiency in the law and I'd welcome the caselaw citations illustrating this difference. Gives me something specific to write my congresscritter about.

It's a win-win for me either way.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Zoe

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brownshirts

Using "Brownshirt" in reference to a Liberal is a contradiction in terms -- similar to calling Conservatives "left-wing." The term "Brownshirt" should be reserved for the extreme ultra right-wing.

Brown Shirt or brown·shirt (brounshûrt)
n.
A Nazi, especially a storm trooper.
A racist, especially a violent, right-wing one.

Word emphasis changed by me. For the record, "especially" does not mean "exclusively", but merely "to a greater degree than is common".

[Harborwolf]

I'm just wondering why this has to be such a big flaming deal. So Dick Cheney did something that makes him look even more like an ass than before, why scream "brownshirts?"

And I have yet to see building permits for all this mountain out of molehill making.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

You're being very sloppy counselor. Cheney can set the bars for attendance at his events(as a private actor) but these bars are not nearly as flexible as you are claiming. Let me ask a quick question, could or could not Mr Cheney stipulate "white people only" as a requirement for admission to his speech? "No Women allowed"?

Yes, he could. Campaign stops are not subject to laws like the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- they are not public accomodations like hotels, restaurants or private clubs. And even if they were, the constitutional right to associate would trump them and permit the exclusion. See, e.g., Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (New Jersey antidiscrimination law cannot prevent BSA from excluding gay scoutmasters).

If the KKK decided to front a candidate for election, they most certainly could exclude blacks from their campaign rallies. If Al Bundy's NO MA'AM wished to back a candidate, they could prevent women from attending their man's campaign appearances. And if Dick Cheney wishes to prevent persons who visibly support John Kerry from attending his appearances, he may do so as well.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

Yes, he could. Campaign stops are not subject to laws like the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- they are not public accomodations like hotels, restaurants or private clubs.

Wouldn't the location of this particular campaign stop have something to do with what sort of exclusions were acceptable? A gymnasium in a school is a taxpayer funded facility. Are schools required (or permitted) by law to rent out their facilities to say the KKK?
I'm not looking to argue with you Dewey, I just thought that there were some legal restrictions on acceptable uses for those facilities.

[Fear Itself]

Something just occurred to me. Aside from the question of whether the voters should have the right to hear the candidates, does it really make political sense? I mean, the Republicans are spending big money to try to sway undecided voters, but they won’t let undecided voters in to hear the candidates? How does this make sense?