Originally posted by BlueTriangle
They'll just put people into free speech zones, which is unconstitutional.
This is bunk and it's the main problem I have with protestors in this day and age. Your right to free speech has not been taken away. It seems that
today's protestors seem to think that the right to free speech is solely their right to yell over those trying to speak with opposing opinions. This
violates the free speech rights of the speaker and my right to hear what they have to say. [*1*]
The recent events concerining Ann Coulter are a prime example of this
I've already seen reports of protest groups calling for large groups of people to yell so that the President's speech can't be heard. Any people
who do such a thing should be put in jail. [*3*]
If you disagree with the President, good for you. If you disagree with the President and feel the need to prevent him from talking, then you deserve
what you get [*4*]...which I hope is some intimate time with Bubba.
Regarding [*1*] Your "right to hear" someone speak is trumped by someone else's right to speak freely. If some controversial figure, wether
over-rated like Coulter or not, has thier p.a. amplified speech interrupted, thier right to speech is not being violated. Perhaps the collected group
would rather hear one person or another speak, but that is up to them. Perhaps, even, the police would decide that a person interrupting the speaker
is creating a public disturbance... though in reallity, it may be the paid speaker doing so... Ideally, this decision is not up to the government, and
we should hope that they stay out of that debate for as long as possible. What is more, your own "right to hear someone else's free speech" begs
the very question of having a "meaningfull" right of protest. Certainly, this is not something you have argued for, but against.
Regarding [*2*], there was no "free" speech going on. She was a highly paid speaker, and no one removed her ability to speak. Indeed, she could
have been asked by the people paying her to stop speaking into the mic, and leave. But they did not. She was boo'ed while at a highly amplified
microphone, like so many bar cover bands are every night. Perhaps some dozens or hundreds of people o'erpowerred her amplified voice, but in no way
was her right to free speech stopped by anyone but her.
Regarding [*3*]... they should be put into jail for... what? speaking loudly? this would seem to counter what you are trying to defend... speech!
Now threatening violence, actually engaging in state sanctioned (or not) violence, and other acts can actually encroach on free speech... but that
did *not* occur in this incident. not in the least.
Regarding [*4*] and who here is threatening to prevent the PotUS from speaking? As far as i can tell, you were the first to dream this one up, Blue
Triangle. You're not threatening PotUs, are you? I would certainly hope not. No one else here has... but perhaps you mean that protestors should
not be allowed within microphone ear-shot of the president, or to shout loudly when He is near? or speak thier mind? or speak so loudly that he can
be heard whenever he wants, without fear of dissent? If so, i think you are invoking your strange "right of one person's speech being heard"
again, and adding to it a right of "no one else but the speaker during his speech" clause. No such right.
Though, perhaps, you are trying to refer to the right of *meaningful* protest. that is something different entirely.
And finally, i find it ridiculous that you are citing people speaking or shouting or even booing during a Coulter speech as an example of Free Speech
being interrupted. Consider, instead, when Martin Luther King was shot during one of his Free Speeches. When the people gatherred to hear him
underwent all sorts of humiliation, intimidation and worse. And King himself was killed.
That's a risk of free speech.
I doubt Coulter has anything nearly so signifigant to say, or that she has endured any hardships whatsoever in her saying it. Prove me wrong.
[edit on 31-1-2006 by TheeStateMachine]