I would actually prefer that political rallies not deny freedom of speech to anyone. What I would do is prohibit things like bullhorns and stuff that would make it impossible to hear the speaker. But this would be on both sides, and have nothing to do with the content of the speech. Thus it would not impinge on freedom of speech.
And, yes, I consider the security for a political rally to count as part of the governments. Not saying it legally does, but it should. There’s nothing more a part of our democracy than a political rally.
Oh, and billfish, you should have blanked your post rather than edit it to say you weren’t going to. You proved by your edit that you saw the Mod Note, and were deliberately disobeying it. I know the way JC said it was rather aggravating, but that doesn’t mean you can get away with being obstinately defiant, either.
I made the “one more post” post BEFORE the mod made the warning
(well within the same minute according to the hamsters…but the mod warning was certainly read by me AFTER my post that got the warning) . And I edited that post to reflect that aka simul post. And I started a ABTM thread about this. And you guys locked it. Because I wasn’t polite enough or something.
Great! Another necessary constraint on “free speech” clearly identified.
How about a speaker at a rally who says, for example, “the Mexican immigrants among you are going to turn on you and destroy your country! Get out there and get rid of them before they get you!” ?
“Free speech”, or deliberate panic-provoking akin to shouting “Fire” in a (fireless) crowded theater?
Ah, another potential data point! Does enforcing board rules about appropriate forum use also count as “not believing in free speech”, according to your definition of “free speech”?
“You guys”? Neither Jonathan Chance nor I had anything to do with closing the ATMB thread. I was not even aware you had started it.
You posted it as a rant. The ATMB Mod closed it with a statement that a discussion would be permitted if you opened a new thread that was not a rant.
Yes, when we get into concepts of “free speech” meaning that everyone gets to say everything, it becomes unenforceable. Reasonable time/manner/place constraints are not impediments to free speech. What is reasonable may be debated.
Sounds like you had time to have erased the offending content and did not.
I closed it, and what tomndebb said is exactly why. It was a rant whose only purpose seemed to be to incite more ranting. ATMB isn’t the place for ranting. I couldn’t even tell what the actual moderation issue was that you wanted to bitch about.
If you have something about this thread that you want to discuss, your post needs to be a whole lot less incoherent ranting and a whole lot more of explaining what the issue is.
Any further discussions about this should be in ATMB.
Scott Adams says the odds of an attempted assassination are 1:3. I wouldn’t have put it that high. But I could be wrong. They are comparing him to Hitler, and that can’t be good for your lifespan.
On the free speech issue, I’d note that there’s a difference between speaking to people who want to hear you, and trying to force your speech on people who don’t.
I dunno 'bout that, others have been at that end of that attempted comparison and have gone on to reasonable longevity in office, current incumbent included. And I also consider that too high. But then again it’s Scott Adams, I don’t think he knows more than you or I about political assasination or just psychos being psycho.
However there’s also the issue of what do you consider an attempted assasination. I wonder what would people say if asked off the top of their heads what was the last assasination attempt on a POTUS or Presidential candidate. After Reagan, people have flown a light plane into the White House, sprayed it with semiauto rifle from the Penn Ave. sidewalk, thrown a grenade (went dud) into an event attended by a President abroad, and it does not seem to have imprinted in the collective memory. Say the Trump plane reports laser hits during approach - targeted assasination attempt or just regular criminal yoyos intefering with airport operations? There’s probably a LOT of people who have tried something against presidents and candidates that we never heard of.
As I see it, that’s the only way it can work! Security personnel have to use their own judgement to determine when the line has been crossed.
How could such definitions be made objectively, in formal clauses? You’d have to factor in the size of the crowd, the noise-level (decibels) of the shouting, even such things as what proportion of the crowd agrees with what was said! As noted, a “Go, Trump, Go” shout is far less disruptive than a “Trump, You Dipshit!” shout. So any “calculus” of offense would have to measure the level of consensus with the content of the speech.
How could that possibly work? Security people would have to plug everything into a computer and then get a response on whether or not to intervene. As it is, they act on the best of their judgement, knowing it’s subjective, and then live with the consequences. If they act too early – or too late – they get scolded. (Which is…free speech!)
But police and security officers are not evaluating “free speech rights” per se. They’re gauging whether anybody’s doing anything obviously illegal or inciting imminently illegal behavior.
Shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre? That’s pretty much what Trump is doing in his ongoing promotion of fear, hatred and violence. I hope he does not get shot, just as I hope the no one else is shot as a result of his instigation.
If I might return to the subject at hand, when will Trump get shot?
I think the chances are better than any candidate has had since Obama. It seems to me that it’s a bit harder for the Secret Service to thoroughly check every venue, every route, and every crowd during a campaign due to the sheer number for events in rapid succession. As presidents are well aware, anyone who wants to exchange his life for his will be able to do it. That being said, it would not surprise me one bit if someone takes a shot at him during the campaign. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a 50-50 chance, more like one in 10.
Yes, I suppose I could HAVE erased that post. BUT instead I noted that my post was posted the same time (actually shortly after from my POV) the post the mod posteded about.
And for that matter, what I posted wasn’t offensive. It wasn’t like I was yelling (insert racist/sexist/whatever word here)!
Even funnier. Look at who started this meme of free speech interupted in this thread…it wasn’t me.