Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler

I agree 100% destroying someone else’s property is wrong .

Now what about the statement he was trying to make. Does destroying someone else’s property automatically make that statement null and void ?

Yes.

Lets say antifa feels they are totally justified in stopping people from attending a richard spencer rally, so they destroy adverts for it and keep people from going.

Would you then say sure it was bad, but what about their message?

Of course not.

This mans message was that of censorship, of destroying personal property to make a political point.

I dont care if he follows me on ats and did this to raise awareness for how awseome i am; it was wrong, and the message of destroying personal property to get your message across is wrong.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
Seriously, he shouldn’t have laid a finger on the balloon. It’s not his property,

I agree 100%...

it’s like slapping a MAGA hat off of someone,

Not even close. A MAGA hat is on the head of someone. Slapping a hat off of someone's head is a physical assault on that person. Attacking the balloon is not.

it’s childish behavior.

Unlike slapping a MAGA hat off of someone's head, which is a physical assault, yeah, this could be considered childish.

a reply to: Grambler

Would you then say sure it was bad, but what about their message?

I wouldn’t like their actions but I would acknowledge their point even though I didn’t like that either. Because not acknowledging it denies them of their first amendment rights. ( that’s the whole thing we’re trying to prevent )

At this point in the argument people try to make a difference between breaking the law with violence or breaking the law passively . It doesn’t matter laws are made to keep us in check and anytime any law is broken it pisses someone off .

Here’s an example I’ve given throughout the thread. In essence your position is the Boston tea party members should’ve been jailed and the participants never heard from ?

I can understand why some people are fighting my position. But for the life of me I can’t understand why the intelligent people are ?

The protesters in Hong Kong are breaking the law violently. Do you denounce their freedom of expression ?

The protesters in tiananmen Square broke the law violently . Do you denounce their freedom of expression ?

The protesters in Venezuela are breaking law violently . Do you denounce their freedom of expression ?

The protesters that ended the Soviet union were breaking the law. Do you denounce their freedom of expression ?

The protesters in Ukraine fought back do you denounce their freedom of expression ?


Or does everyone draw the line at helium filled effigies?


I think everyone’s position is shallow and self-serving to make theirself feel like A righteous intellectual . (yes I just called everybody social justice warriors) lol

The actions Hoyt took to make a statement should be a minimal part of the argument not the main concern.

It’s not a capital offense to poke a balloon .

a reply to: redmage

Kbye

SMH

a reply to: Fallingdown

No not listening to the message of someone destroying public property in no way violates their first amendment rights.

I can chose who to listen to or ignore, to claim I am obligated to listen to someone or else I am violating their free speech is ridiculous.



You cite the Boston tea party and hong kong. That was all people breaking the law or destorying government property, not sopme private guys stuff.

Had the boston tea party decided to just destroy one guys property who supported the king, it would have been not only not impactful, but would have made them jerks who were petty.


Meanwhile you have justified everything antifa stands for; we must listen to their message as they use violence and property destruction to censor people they dont like, or we are violating their first amendment.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
I can understand why some people are fighting my position. But for the life of me I can’t understand why the intelligent people are ?

Because they respect the Constitution, and the rights it describes.

a reply to: Grambler

How does my position always go sideways? Oh yeah it’s called spin .

No not listening to the message of someone destroying public property in no way violates their first amendment rights.

Of course you personally don’t have to listen. My point was does he have the right to be heard because he popped the balloon .

You cite the Boston tea party and hong kong. That was all people breaking the law or destorying government property, not sopme private guys stuff.


Had the boston tea party decided to just destroy one guys property who supported the king, it would have been not only not impactful, but would have made them jerks who were petty

I’m kind of surprised you did basically the same damn thing I predicted .

At this point in the argument people try to make a difference between breaking the law with violence or breaking the law passively . It doesn’t matter laws are made to keep us in check and anytime any law is broken it pisses someone off .

More dissection of my points instead of addressing the position . (Sigh)

Meanwhile you have justified everything antifa stands for; we must listen to their message as they use violence and property destruction to censor people they dont like, or we are violating their first amendment.

Yes I do that’s been my point. At least I’m honest about it. I’ve already said earlier they deserve to be heard I might not like what they have to say but they have the right to say it . If they are committing a criminal act they can be arrested but that does not diminish the way they feel . Which should give us all the more reason to listen .

That’s called an honest position something no one on this thread has taken.

Here let me make it clear .

Despite the actions anyone takes everyone deserves to be heard. If you don’t hear them how can you make a judgment on them. Their actions don’t need to be approved of just listened to . That’s what the first amendment is all about .


Apparently the one exception to this rule is popping a balloon with a knife .

a reply to: Fallingdown

I can understand why some people are fighting my position. But for the life of me I can’t understand why the intelligent people are ?

Here's a possibility..you're wrong.,can you at least entertain that concept?

I think everyone’s position is shallow and self-serving to make theirself feel like A righteous intellectual

Pot, meet kettle.

How would you have everybody be forced to hear his message? People will hear what they want and disregard what they don't..end of story.

History decides who's message, or civil disobedience is/was valid.

a reply to: Fallingdown

I dont understand your stance.

Right to be heard?

How does one violate a persons right to be heard? Prison?

I can committ any crime, and still people can chose to listen to me. The same is true here.

My refusing to listen to a guy who is destroying someones property isnt violating his first amendment.

Is your stance I should be forced to listen to this man?

I would think not. Then what are you arguing?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Despite the actions anyone takes everyone deserves to be heard. If you don’t hear them how can you make a judgment on them. Their actions don’t need to be approved of just listened to . That’s what the first amendment is all about .

Being "heard" is not what the 1st amendment is about. The first amendment is about freedom of expression. There's a difference between freedom of speech, and mistakenly believing that you have the right to force others to listen.

a reply to: vonclod

For the love of God

Let me dumb my position down for clarity .

Hoyt criminally popped the Trump balloon .

Does that mean he forfeited his first amendment rights ?

I say no that’s my entire position .

Am I wrong as you suggested ?

Now instead of a direct answer. I’m reasonably sure you’re going to come back with some type of rationalization . Because that’s all anybody has done .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Has anyone on this thread suggested Hoyt no longer has the right to free speech? I certainly didnt, I just said I have the right to refuse to listen to a censorious criminal who destroys people property for political reasons.

Perhaps i missed it, so can you quote it?

a reply to: Grambler

Has anyone on this thread suggested Hoyt no longer has the right to free speech?

Yes every time I brought that position up people said I was wrong .

They dissected my view it’s a criminal act, it’s violent not non-violent it is against a person not a country, he’s no better than her ANTIFA.... etc

Just about everybody danced around on the head of a pin to avoid saying he still had a right to be heard .


I’m expecting someone I just replied to to before you do the exact same thing .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Does that mean he forfeited his first amendment rights ?

I say no that’s my entire position.

Why do you keep raising this straw man argument?

No one is suggesting this, or denying him his first amendment rights.

He can, and has said what he wanted to say. Basically, to paraphrase, "republicans have no balls unless they destroy the property of others".

What he can't do is to go around actually destroying the property of others.

a reply to: Fallingdown
I guess it's just everyone in the thread is too stupid to understand you



Who took away his 1st amendment?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler

Has anyone on this thread suggested Hoyt no longer has the right to free speech?

Yes every time I brought that position up people said I was wrong .

They dissected my view it’s a criminal act, it’s violent not non-violent it is against a person not a country, he’s no better than her ANTIFA.... etc

Just about everybody danced around on the head of a pin to avoid saying he still had a right to be heard .


I’m expecting someone I just replied to to before you do the exact same thing .

None pof what you just showed is anyone saying he should lose his first amendment.

Not even close.

The problem seems to be you are arguing against a point no one made; that he should no longer have the right to free speech; and then using that to say people saying this guy is wrong for his criminal act, and we shouldnt listen to his reasoning, are somehow defending taking away his first amendment.

I agree with you this man should not lose his first amendment for this act; I disagree with you that me saying he shouldnt be listened to is violating his first amendment.

a reply to: vonclod

Does he have the right to be heard yes or no ?

a reply to: Fallingdown
Of course he does!..to clarify..he is free to speak his message.

I don't think anyone has said otherwise..other than personal convictions on whether they "wanted" to listen.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: vonclod

Does he have the right to be heard yes or no ?

No! Neither do I, or you, or anyone else in this country.

There is no "right to be heard" anywhere in the first amendment or constitution.

He has the right to speak, no one is disagreeing with that.

But we dont have to listen.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Does he have the right to be heard yes or no ?

No.

He has the right to speak, but he has no right to force others to listen to him.