How unfortunate. Bless your heart, it can’t be easy. Perhaps if you set and think fer a while, some pertinent differences between a public park and a movie theater will present themselves.
In any event, without regard to the sincerity of your remark, I find this dialogue less than promising. Good day, Madam or Sir or otherwise, as the case may be.
I’m generally not in agreement with creating “free speech spaces” with the intention of all other areas then not permitting free speech, in public spaces like parks, sidewalks, etc. I’m not sure it works to say, here is where you may speak freely, away from where all the people tend to go.
I don’t like being accosted either, but I value free speech more. There may be exceptions when opposing groups need to be kept apart, but that is not what is described in the OP.
The problem being in your apparent confidence that the Supreme Court will agree with your definition of who is a con man.
That’s much of the other point I was trying to make above - you would like to allow the government to impose content-based censorship. I do not believe they should be allowed to do so, because I don’t think they should get to decide.
You don’t like religion - that’s your right. The Wheaton students do like it - that’s their right. The current make up of the Senate, White House, and Supreme Court do not suggest that they are likely to decide your way, if they get to pick.
Regards,
Shodan
There have to be limits. Suppose someone set up a loudspeaker outside your house (but on the public sidewalk) blaring some cause at 100Db. Clearly you have to draw a line somewhere and the question is where. If all they do is pass out pamphlets I see no harm. That’s what wastebaskets are for. But if they assault you (no battery) that is a no-no. Obviously, shouting fire in a theater is another. So where to draw the line. What about advocating violent overthrow of the government? I just don’t know, but I think I have a right to a peaceful day in a public park.
Very interesting thread.
Advocating violent overthrow would come under Schenk v US. That’s the whole “clear and present danger” thing.
Which was replaced in 1969 by the “imminent lawless action” standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio, right?
Correct. Since Hari wasn’t specific on the advocating, it will remain a nebulous question. Although one could assume that any speech made to a general audience would meet the standard of “Likely to incite or produce a lawless action.”
Yeah - that brings up another of my highest personal values - privacy - in all its forms. Which includes not being hassled. Which probably comes to bear in this specific situation.
Yeah - I know, if I don’t want to encounter other people, don’t leave my home. Just explaining some of my personal conflict here. I’m happy to nod, smile, and exchange greetings with passersby, but I generally don’t try to inform strangers of my political/religious views, and my preference would be that they not do the same.
I can imagine all manner of restrictions in this park that I would support. No amplified devices. No posters/banners exceeding a certain size. No staying in one place for longer than a certain time (which would apply to plain-old tourists as well.) No static installations - platforms, lecterns, chairs, etc.
But someone simply expressing their views in a conversational tone and offering pieces of paper in a public park, not in a manner that interferes with a performance or event? As much as I detest such people and their actions (which anyone can certainly consider irrational on my part), I’m having a hard time differentiating that from someone asking the time, or for directions.
Is everyone you disagree with a con man, or do you reserve that only for Evangelicals? If you have ever been conned by someone claiming to be a Christian did you press charges?
You are entitled to your opinion, but you have no right to impose your opinion on others by demanding their silence in a public place because you don’t like the message.
I’ve seen and heard the things the radical religious people say and do to the people going into the Women’s Health Center. I’ve seen the women tell them “No, leave me alone” only to have them continue to get in their faces and even chase them down the sidewalk.
Yes, you have the right to your ideas and free speech, but when people say NO, leave them alone.
Here’s one that got to me today. From a story on Slashdot.
A developer pulled a Ruby library when he found out that one company was using it in a product they sold to ICE.
So, yay, I wouldn’t want my software used by those … people either. But.
Boo, if you’re doing Open Source-type stuff you don’t have a say over who gets to use it. If your code is being used by Neo-Nazis, so be it.
The author’s action, to just kill the whole thing, is extreme but probably better than trying to thread a needle with a rope.
Even though the original topic of Antiabortionists in this post works just fine for me as well, really the thing that gets me ticking is flag burning(which I don’t like)I did not spend all those years in the military serving this country just so some yonk can tell me or anyone how we can or cannot voice displeasure or protest our government. I support flag burning.
Cute. Why would you pretend to not know what a con man is, and that in your face proselytizing religious jackasses fit the description? You trynna pull one over on me?
The book was written in the 70s by a Westerner who was one of the first to go to Nepal to study Buddhism. He didn’t specify any other quandaries. At the time, they were trying to deal with China’s impending annexation, so they had bigger fish to fry.
Offhand, I’d guess Nepal’s high elevation is not conducive to mosquitoes. Plus, the monks were largely insular and rarely commingled with the outside world, so they probably didn’t dwell in populous germ-infested environments that much. You have to remember, they live entirely within their worship and farm for themselves, something few Westerners were willing to do.
Hey! Wheaton was founded by Mary Lyon, a pioneer in women’s education, a feminist, and a liberal rather to the left of almost everybody. After whom my mother is named.
The connection with Billy Graham is that his wife went there. Before they were married.
You serious? The college is mistaken in representing BG as their most famous alum?
And that big-ass Billy Graham Center smack dab in the middle of campus is - um - just a memorial to his wife’s time at her alma mater?
I have no reason to discount what you say about the college’s founders. And I retract my alternative supposition that BG founded OR was strongly associate with the college. But you are ENTIRELY off base if you suggest that for the past 40-50 years at least (as long as I’ve been aware of and lived near it) it has been just about as hardcore evangelical Christian as a college can get.
The residents of Chicago have the right to designate what is and isn’t appropriate usage of their public spaces. Maybe that’s a “keep of the grass” sign or “no bicycles allowed” in certain areas of a park. The purpose of which is to maintain orderly and effective usage of the assets that they have dedicated for this use.
The Bean is a tourist attraction. Effective use of this important space means both managing traffic and ensuring that the tourists (and the money they bring into the town) have an opportunity to enjoy the Bean when they visit. If tourists (and residents) can’t enjoy this particular piece of art, if visiting the Bean is a shitty experience, what’s the fucking point of having it in the first place?
The thing about free speech is that nobody should be forced to give you a soapbox to speak from. An inability to use the most convenient avenue for one’s speech shouldn’t be considered a restriction on your speech, when many many other avenues are available.
I like to think of myself as a strong advocate for free speech. But what’s always struck me as the important distinction is that restrictions should never be based on the CONTENT of the speech. That’s very different from restrictions being based on the METHOD of the speech.
A law which prohibits 150 decibel megaphoned arguments in a residential area at 2 a.m.? Totally reasonable.
A law which prohibits criticizing the mayor, put allows criticizing his opponents? Obviously a violation of free speech.
Now, obviously, it’s not always quite that cut and dried… a law making it illegal to protest out side abortion clinics, for instance, much as I might want to support such a law on some level, is obviously going to have a disproportionate effect on those speaking on one side of that particular issue. Which makes it tricky. So for instance this Chicago law might be troubling if for decades there had been a tradition of Buddhists hanging around espousing Buddhism, and then Christians start doing the same thing, and then suddenly, oh, whoops, better make it illegal; then that would be a red flag. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here.