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.

 

Man assaulted for free speech

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
Your allowed to say whatever you want you just have to deal with the consequences sometimes that's someone else using their right to free speech sometimes its being punched out.


This man is being aggressive intone not being rational and his right to free speech isn't being ended merely he is refusing to deal with the consequences. If your verbally assaulting people trying to be rational of course things will escalate.


You have a right to free speech, you do not have the right to punch someone out. It is not logically consistent to argue that one legal, protected action's "consequences" are the crime(s) inherent in the other action.

Furthermore, aggressive tone and "rationality" have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Angry speech is protected. Unpopular speech is protected. If things "escalate," the law is clear. When that obese security guard laid his hand on the man, he broke the law. If, and I say if, because I have not read Alaska's state constitution, free speech is not protected on private property with public access, the legal remedy for the property owner would be calling the police.




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 

Ah, but you seem to misunderstand the video. As he starts getting attention from the guards people begin to assemble and therefore, assembly. And peace is part of the clause,


the right of the people peaceably to assemble

And also notice it says "Congress", so if the state government wanted to make a law about the right to exercise the freedom of speech then they can do so without breaking the Constitution.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Assembling requires intention. If I go to a crowded place, such as a shopping mall, the other patrons and I cannot be said to have assembled. They were there and I was there, but it is not an assembly.
And besides, the freedom of speech provision is independent and separate from the right to assemble provision. You conflate the two as though one right is dependent upon the other. It is not. If that were the case, why not include other provisions such as the right to free exercise of religion in your mishmash? For example, you would lose that right if in any way the right to free press were infringed. Hopefully you can see the problem with that. They are separate.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by joechip]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Fine then, but that still doesn't change the fact that Alaska's state government can do what they want with freedom of speech. Only congress can't change it.
And even still, he was disturbing the peace. So he probably has charges for that and maybe (maybe) resisting arrest.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Do you feel that we should do away with the concept of private property then?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Even private property has right of way.

If you own a house, people can walk on in the first 10 feet of your grass because it is their right to. The public has the right of way. It is called an easement. Same with any private owned property, public access or not.

en.wikipedia.org...


An easement is the right to use the real property of another without possessing it. Easements are helpful for providing pathways across two or more pieces of property or allowing an individual to fish in a privately owned pond. An easement is considered as a property right in itself at common law and is still treated as a type of property in most jurisdictions.

The rights of an easement holder vary substantially among jurisdictions. Historically, the common law courts would enforce only four types of easement:

1.The right-of-way (easements of way),
2.Easements of support (pertaining to excavations),
3.Easements of "light and air",
4.Rights pertaining to artificial waterways.
Modern courts recognize more varieties of easements, but these original categories still form the foundation of easement law.


He was within his rights, and no one had the right to touch him. You would notice he was right on the side of the road. No one owns that land, by law. You have waterlines, powerlines, sewer lines, all tended to by their respective government agencies.

Many yards have sidewalks that are government tended. Street lights. If they want to come lay sewer lines and tear up your yard, they have the right to.

People also have the right to protest there, just take a look at the Tot Mom case in Florida where they camped outside their home for weeks.

Some states and local jurisdictions, however, may require a license for certain types of protests.

Some posters are also correct in pointing out the private security had no right to lay on hands unless they are certified to do so. As in off duty police.

Most private security companies do not allow forcible restraint of someone. The only way they could get away with that was if they had reson to suspect he was committing a felony, and then could only use certain limits of force. Sitting on him for that extended period of time was not reasonable.

I hope he sues and wins.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


So what you are saying is that I can walk 9.5 feet onto the grounds of a private elementary school and scream angrily about how sexy the children are?

I can walk 9.5 onto the property of a church and scream angry hateful things about whatever religion they are?

I can walk 9.5 feet onto your property and scream angrily anything I want about you and your family?

That is what you are saying and hoping prevails?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by cindyremains
reply to post by Libertygal
 


So what you are saying is that I can walk 9.5 feet onto the grounds of a private elementary school and scream angrily about how sexy the children are?

I can walk 9.5 onto the property of a church and scream angry hateful things about whatever religion they are?

I can walk 9.5 feet onto your property and scream angrily anything I want about you and your family?

That is what you are saying and hoping prevails?


I think there are laws regarding hate speech, and particularly schools.

Just like there are laws about using words like bomb in an airport, or fire in a theater.

And yes, you can come onto the first 10 feet of my property and protest me being a child molester if I were one, and be within the law if you are not slandering.

I won't play your troll bait games. I have read enough of your posts.

Good try though.

Here are some laws regarding the right to protest, in Tennessee, for example:



www.aclu-tn.org...
Public schools: School administrators have the ability to restrict access
to school property in order to provide a safe and orderly environment
for students. However, if administrators open school facilities
to any non-student group, they are obligated to extend this privilege
to all non-student groups who wish to have access.


[edit on 6-9-2010 by Libertygal]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 
But this isn't Tennessee, it's Alaksa. And Seeing as we didn't see the whole part of what that guy is saying we have no idea if he was being hateful to our lord and savior Obama (sarcasm)



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
I think there are laws regarding hate speech, and particularly schools.

Just like there are laws about using words like bomb in an airport, or fire in a theater.

And yes, you can come onto the first 10 feet of my property and protest me being a child molester if I were one, and be within the law if you are not slandering.

I won't play your troll bait games. I have read enough of your posts.

Good try though.


Notice how you had to ADJUST each and every one of those things in order to make it fit your argument. Sorry if my having a valid point upsets you so much. Such is the one who says "I wont play and here is a lengthy post full of me not playing"




Here are some laws regarding the right to protest, in Tennessee, for example:


Why would I care about Tennessee?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Xionmir
 


I guess I should have looked up Alaska Protest laws, but something tells me that cindy's remains can do that on her own.


Besides, I think the protest rules go by federal standards if I am not mistaken, I know the fire and bomb ones are federal. But yes, states and even counties and munipalities can make their own laws.

Did I mention in my state, and Tennessee was just an example?


[edit on 6-9-2010 by Libertygal]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Free Speech doesn't mean that you can say anything you want, anywhere you want. It means that Congress can't make laws that infringe on our right to express ourselves.

This man was on private property. The security guards hired to keep peace were doing their jobs. The man was uncooperative, screaming and disturbing the peace. We also didn't see it all. What happened before the cameras started rolling?

From what I can see in this video, the LaRouche supporter blew his opportunity to exercise his free speech. It's terrible to watch something like that, but I totally understand how the security cops saw this guy as a threat to the peace.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 


I don't know which of my arguments led you to the conclusion that I'm advocating abolishing "private property." If I somehow inadvertently gave that impression, all apologies.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Yeah, no I totally get it now. You have the right to come 8 feet onto my private lawn and tell my children what kind of sexual acts you might like to perform on them and scream angrily at anyone around. That is what you say our rights are and you are all for it. Sounds good to me. Just wondering where your property line starts.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
reply to post by tracer7
 


WHAT? What are you talking about? They attempted to let the man leave on his own, not just once but several times. He didn't listen and got nailed with the consequences. He wasn't practicing free speech, he was trespassing on private property and got what he deserved. Quit looking for excuses to bash athority figures because this excuse is obviously wrong.



Wait til you are in his position, then make this same post.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


This man was on private property.



how do you know this? and furthermore security guards aren't police no more authority than you and I have.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
how do you know this?


I'm taking the word of other members, one of whom lives in Alaska, from the other thread on this video.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The security guy said it was private property.

And finally, the Alaska Daily News:



The fair has an unwritten policy against people campaigning in common areas, Phipps said. The YouTube clip shows Hill clashing loudly with security guards before being forced to the ground and eventually arrested.
...
The fair is on private property, owned by the non-profit Alaska State Fair Inc. If people want to deliver a political message -- on abortion or Pebble Mine, for example -- they're expected to rent a booth and follow vendor guidelines, Phipps said.

Read more: www.adn.com...


[edit on 9/6/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
What an obnoxious man. He just knew that by being antagonistic and annoying the Security guards would act. Handy camera man to record his hurt wailings. A set up and publicity seeking ploy.

Regards



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join