It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

page: 43
36
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You have an interesting argument.

I suppose it would need to be tested and tried in the courts for a judge and jury to decide if they agree with your opinion that a balloon constitutes something which reasonably intends to "incite violence", or is a public danger like yelling "FIRE!" in a theater.

As for permits, they tend to be a local and state governmental issue. You certainly don't need to go to congress and the federal government for permission to protest.
edit on 11/13/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown


Apparently you didn’t read the whole quote either because a much better version of your reply was in it .


I quoted him pages and pages ago. But since you admittedly don't read replies, I don't expect you to have read it.


Do you slight him for standing up against partial late term abortion among other things ?


He didn't stand up for anything.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage


I suppose it would need to be tested and tried in the courts for a judge and jury to decide if they agree with your opinion that a balloon constitutes something which reasonably intends to "incite violence", or is a public danger like yelling "FIRE!" in a theater.


The court would likely say it does not incite violence (but ruling and legal opinions can change). If holding a sign doesn't incite violence, neither does a balloon.

It does not promote imminent lawless violence.

See Brandenburg v. Ohio, for starters.
edit on 13-11-2019 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

I agree.

Personally, I think the notion of a balloon inciting violence sounds a bit snowflakey to me. I don't think a reasonable person would be triggered to violence by the sight of a balloon.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage


Yeah, I'm still a bit surprised that it wasn't shut down, but usually protests are given quite a bit of leeway by law enforcement as long as the protesters remain civil.

And I will normally agree with you that protestors should be given leeway. However, when the protests become so brazen and inconsiderate of others that they threaten to disrupt something as apolitical as a college ball game? Sorry, but at that point the protests become a problem for society instead of an impetus to improve society.


Since the protest appears to have been on and near the campus, and it's a public state university instead of a private college, is that still considered private property or public property in AL?

That is a complex subject that I tried to address earlier, but the gist of the matter is that the university is still considered a type of private property, with the caveat that it is to operate for the benefit of the public.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



If their intent was not to be seen from Bryant-Denny, then why fly a balloon designed to mock the President?

A balloon of that size is visible from a very far distance when aloft. The intent to make themselves heard in Bryant-Denny is clearly evident. And remember, there is no right to be heard!


You may want to look at some of the many videos on the subject because they were not flying it. My guess it would be dangerous around power lines or they never had the intention to fly it at all.



If their intent was not to be seen from Bryant-Denny, then why fly a balloon designed to mock the President?

A balloon of that size is visible from a very far distance when aloft. The intent to make themselves heard in Bryant-Denny is clearly evident. And remember, there is no right to be heard!


The fact they were not flying it kinda makes your statement look silly. As far as mocking the president well it is there constitutional right to do if they wish.



Firstly, the location specified is closer to a half-mile away. CNN got their geography wrong.

Yes, I claim their intent was to have their protest seen from within Bryant-Denny.


Again, that is a silly argument since it wasn't flying and even if it was I doubt the baby Trump ant would insight anything if it was even noticed.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That is a complex subject that I tried to address earlier, but the gist of the matter is that the university is still considered a type of private property, with the caveat that it is to operate for the benefit of the public.


Which of these properties at the intersection where this occurred are part of the university?




posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


when the protests become so brazen and inconsiderate of others that they threaten to disrupt something as apolitical as a college ball game? Sorry, but at that point the protests become a problem for society instead of an impetus to improve society.


Should protesters be considerate of those against whom they protest, or those they might offend while so doing?

The president of the Unites States was at the game.

People have the right to protest the president.

Had the president of Unites States not been in attendance, your point would be valid.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Actually I quit following this thread a while ago when I admitted where I was wrong on a couple positions. I expected someone to be big enough to address my main position honestly. But who am I kidding ?

I I guess I’m the only person with enough self-esteem to do-year-old to someone else’s opinion .


I guess you missed this reply since you admitted you don’t read the pages .

Like I’ve said before. This is a simple yes or no question don’t need no explanation or excuses .

So goooo

Is your position that if anyone breaks a law in the process of expressing their self or giving their opinion.

Their position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged by anyone even the people that consider it their right to hear the position “?

I doubt I’ll get a real reply .



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown



Is your position that if anyone breaks a law in the process of expressing their self or giving their opinion.

Their position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged by anyone even the people that consider it their right to hear the position “?


I answered that more than once.

You even screencapped my reply to others more than once.

But nice attempt to troll.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

It would obviously depend on the balloon and the intended audience. For instance, flying a balloon portraying the American flag over a Veteran's Day event would not in any way be considered offensive to veterans, but flying a balloon shaped like Hitler sporting a swastika over a Jewish temple would certainly be offensive!

In this case, the target audience is composed of Alabama and Louisiana residents, two states which are well-known to be pro-Trump. The balloon in question is a caricature intended to denigrate Trump. That is certainly offensive and intended to elicit such a response from the target audience (which, I may add, it did in the form of an angry Hoyt Hutchinson). Furthermore, it is being deployed at an apolitical event, so there is no reason for anyone to believe that it will in any way affect US policy. Thus, the only reasonable intent would be to incite anger.

Someone earlier asked me what I meant by "illegitimate protest." That is what I meant.


As for permits, they tend to be a local and state governmental issue. You certainly don't need to go to congress and the federal government for permission to protest.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that the protections from the Federal government enumerated in the Constitution also apply to the states and municipalities therein.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Wait... it was earlier shown that the protestors paid $4000 to rent the balloon. And you don't believe they intended to fly it?

Come on, surely you can see the illogic in that argument.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Some people protested.

They used a balloon.

Another guy didn't like it so he trashed their balloon.

43 pages of butthurt later?

People still don't get it.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Just out of curiosity...

Where does their right to protest the President end, and my right to enjoy a very good football game begin??

Living as I do in Alabama, there's a chance that I might indeed be at such a game as Alabama vs LSU...unlikely perhaps since I'm not a fan of either school. But still well within the realm of possibility.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


Should protesters be considerate of those against whom they protest, or those they might offend while so doing?

The president of the Unites States was at the game.

People have the right to protest the president.

Had the president of Unites States not been in attendance, your point would be valid.

I'm sorry; I reject that argument out of hand.

Just because a political figure decides to attend an apolitical event, it does not follow that all attending that event should also be protested. if you want to use that argument where a state function is occurring or where a campaign rally is occurring, you would have a point. Otherwise, this argument is simply a way to try and ostracize an elected official for political reasons, which could be seen as interfering in an election.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

And likely never will, it seems.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Furthermore, it is being deployed at an apolitical event...

The event was in a stadium a half mile away, the intersection was not university property.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Just because a political figure decides to attend an apolitical event, it does not follow that all attending that event should also be protested


All are not being protested, just the political figure in attendance being protested. In this case, the president.

Trump does not suspend being president just because he goes to a ballgame, as stated.


Otherwise, this argument is simply a way to try and ostracize an elected official for political reasons, which could be seen as interfering in an election.


Lmao. You're funny.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull



Where does their right to protest the President end, and my right to enjoy a very good football game begin??


How does their right to protest infringe on your enjoyment of a game?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

My bad I forgot about your reply. I wasn’t following what you guys were talking about last night but again my bad. I was sticking to my position and you guys were discussing the constitution in depth . Again my bad .

So here’s your reply again .




It seems to be your opinion that no one should be allowed to view his actions favorably because of a criminal action .


Are you applying that position to everyone or just yourself ?


edit on 13-11-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join