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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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 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:
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.
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.
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…
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.
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. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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?
