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.

 

"Birther" arrested during Constitution reading

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by daddyroo45

Does that mean she had entered a "no free speech zone" is that right curtailed in the peoples house?


It means in our society we have agreed that there is a time and a place for certain things. If an adult cannot control themselves in polite society, this is how we agreed to treat them in general. For that matter, taking an issue that people think is a little "crazy" and screaming about it like an idiot does not a good case make.


I must have missed that meeting. The agreement that yelling fire in a crowed building is not protected free speech,is widely accepted. However to voice ones opinion in a non vulgar way IS protected !!




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
I must have missed that meeting. The agreement that yelling fire in a crowed building is not protected free speech,is widely accepted. However to voice ones opinion in a non vulgar way IS protected !!


Really? I do not believe such absolutes exist but we can test this theory.

Go out to your nearest public school, public library, and police station. Go inside and shout how you are of the opinion that 3rd graders are super sexy. Then come back and let me know if society has a few more standards about times and places to yell things. Good luck!



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


You seem to be equating intelligence with free speech. I did happen to mention in the previous post about NON-VULGAR speech. Your point holds no water.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


You seem to be equating intelligence with free speech.

No, I am equating free speech with free speech. Maybe you could explain?

I did happen to mention in the previous post about NON-VULGAR speech. Your point holds no water.

I never said you had to be vulgar about it. You cannot express physical attraction without being vulgar? Big hit with the ladies then?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Free speech and the right to express themselves are priveledges not rights. Its sad to say but true. In the U.S the law schools teach that there really is no such thing as a right. Odd to hear it isn't it? As a person we have priveledges that are extended to us by the collective body of represenatives of the people called Government. The gov't has no real Head as to what many people think. People think the president is the end all be all but in actuality the H.O.R and senate have the most power. Everyone in power is a paid person and none of them want to rock the boat to clean up the system in fear of losing lucritive money and power. If we really had an inalienable "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then prisons and the death sentence would be illegal. Think about it..... as far as Obama... We may never know if he is really a natural born citizen. One reason why in my opinion is because a marrionette always takes good care of their puppets because thats how he make his money.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by backinblack

Funny, I swear I saw "feedom of speech" in the constitution somewhere.


Obviously that means that while you are having a wake for your deceased mother in your home, I can just run in and scream obscenities becuase free speech is a total free for all to just say anything any time any place, right?


Of course you are free to do it..
But don't be shocked at what my 3 cousins , all with black belts do to you


But I don't think the lady screamed obscenities and it was a public building....



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Of course you are free to do it..
But don't be shocked at what my 3 cousins , all with black belts do to you


But I don't think the lady screamed obscenities and it was a public building....


Way to miss the point there. The response was to the idea that free speech meant ANYTHING ANYWHERE ANYTIME. Obscenities are part of ANYTHING. Honestly if your argument is that people other than you will beat me up, you are not even trying to actually address the issue. Sorry to hear you need backup to hurt a 115 pound girl too by the way. Hope you get better.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Sorry to hear you need backup to hurt a 115 pound girl too by the way. Hope you get better.
Did he say they would hurt you? I thought he meant they would cover your mouth and escort you out.


Regarding limits on free speech, Wiki has a few comments on it here:

Limitations_on_freedom_of_speech

Basically speech which may cause harm is not granted free speech status. Speech which may offend is open to some judgment and discretion:


Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.
So whether offensive speech should be granted freedom should consider factors like those.

In the funeral home example, even it it's not illegal and you can't arrest someone, I think you could still ask them to leave and escort them off the premises if they refused, if the function is for your deceased relative and someone is disrupting it.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Did he say they would hurt you? I thought he meant they would cover your mouth and escort you out.

He did not specify the intent, just that it would be three men with black belts. Need a black belt to escort someone out? Sounds a bit much to me.


Regarding limits on free speech, Wiki has a few comments on it here:

Limitations_on_freedom_of_speech

Basically speech which may cause harm is not granted free speech status. Speech which may offend is open to some judgment and discretion:


Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.
So whether offensive speech should be granted freedom should consider factors like those.

In the funeral home example, even it it's not illegal and you can't arrest someone, I think you could still ask them to leave and escort them off the premises if they refused, if the function is for your deceased relative and someone is disrupting it.


I did not say anything about it being against the law to do so but I would in fact at the very least be trespassing, something no one would have cared about before I started YELLING MY OPINION. Get it? I was simply pointing out that society as a whole has agreed that free speech does have limits. There is a time and a place.

I offered an experiment anyone can try.

More to the point though, does anyone think this actually helps that cause? The rules were ALREADY established because someone already decided this was not the time and place for people to just yell things at random. They did not make this up on the spot when this lady went off.

So now you have a "birther" acting like a loon, behaving no better than a bad child in church, and the Republicans waving goodbye to her as she is taken away. What case does that make other than birthers cannot control themselves and the Repbublican leadership does not care about them.

If there is a legitimate concern, there are things people can do. Write letters, make phone calls, talk to your elected officials, filing complaints through proper channels, take a case to court, lobby, etc. Why do you suppose instead of doing any of that birthers are relegated to repeating old rumors and espousing ignorance of US documents on internet forums and yelling out things at times when no one is going to listen?

I am all for free speech as it has been agreed upon thus far. Freedom of speech does not translate to freedom to interrupt. Otherwise her freedom of speech was trampling someone else's freedom of speech wasn't it?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by backinblack

Of course you are free to do it..
But don't be shocked at what my 3 cousins , all with black belts do to you


But I don't think the lady screamed obscenities and it was a public building....


Way to miss the point there. The response was to the idea that free speech meant ANYTHING ANYWHERE ANYTIME. Obscenities are part of ANYTHING. Honestly if your argument is that people other than you will beat me up, you are not even trying to actually address the issue. Sorry to hear you need backup to hurt a 115 pound girl too by the way. Hope you get better.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)


I think you are simply trying to derail the thread..
There is a HUGE difference between asking that the Constitution be abided by in a puplic place, as this lady did, and screaming obscenities in a private place...

But whatever rocks ya boat..



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I think you are simply trying to derail the thread..
There is a HUGE difference between asking that the Constitution be abided by in a puplic place, as this lady did, and screaming obscenities in a private place...

But whatever rocks ya boat..


Not at all. I offered a perfectly good obscenity free experiment I am still waiting for any of you to report back on. Focus on what you want. I respond to the post at hand. That post was about "anything." Don't like it? Move on to the next one and get your behind down to the library and shout about how much you like children.

There is also a huge difference between asking that the constitution be abided by in a public place and SCREAMING DURING A SPEECH. Why the hell should anyone have the right to shout over me? Are you saying some speech is more protected than other speech?

Get real. None of you are the least bit upset that the Speaker could not be bothered to listen to the whole thing or the fact that they cut out the parts that just dont sound good but you are all for some lady screaming during a session with established rules against just that. I am not buying it. Birthers know they have nothing left and no one cares so now it is going to be about free speech? I get it.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
People are commonly removed from public places for creating a disturbance that upsets the decorum. Try going to your local theater and talking through the movie. You will, also, find yourself removed - even placed under arrest in the process.

I think much of the indignation here is people not understanding the differences between being placed under arrest and being charged with a crime. Being placed under arrest does not mean one is charged - and you can be released, without charge, once you've been placed under arrest.

In short, the state of "arrest" in these cases, most often, is only affected until such a time as a person is removed from the premises.

~Heff



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



There is also a huge difference between asking that the constitution be abided by in a public place and SCREAMING DURING A SPEECH. Why the hell should anyone have the right to shout over me? Are you saying some speech is more protected than other speech?

Get real. None of you are the least bit upset that the Speaker could not be bothered to listen to the whole thing or the fact that they cut out the parts that just dont sound good but you are all for some lady screaming during a session with established rules against just that. I am not buying it. Birthers know they have nothing left and no one cares so now it is going to be about free speech? I get it.


Recently the US has seen peacefull protests with many thousands of people complaing about many Government issues..
The MSM and the pollies pay little attention..
Atleast this lady got some airtime..
More than thousands of protesters seem to achieve..

If that's whats needed to be heard by our reps in Government then so be it..!!



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Trust me, I am on the utmost edge of my seat with anticipation to see just exactly how quickly the Tea Party candidates as well as the non TP GOP candidates do NOT A DAMN THING for any of you about it. I am glad she got some attention too. I am not glad adults have been reduced to trampling other people's rights as she so clearly did though. And you applaud that? Tsk tsk. I thought you were pro-free speech? I am.

ETA: Considering she is specifically asking Jesus to intervene on behalf of her birther feelings makes me that much more glad this happened.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by backinblack
 


Trust me, I am on the utmost edge of my seat with anticipation to see just exactly how quickly the Tea Party candidates as well as the non TP GOP candidates do NOT A DAMN THING for any of you about it. I am glad she got some attention too. I am not glad adults have been reduced to trampling other people's rights as she so clearly did though. And you applaud that? Tsk tsk. I thought you were pro-free speech? I am.


Your bias shines thru..
Rant on with no more replies from me..



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Your bias shines thru..
Rant on with no more replies from me..


I have never once in my life been shy about admitting I have a very strong bias toward logic, truth, and provable fact. Maybe you are biased toward just listening to people like Berg or Taitz? I dunno, I would not assume as much about you. See how you are though.

Good luck with all that birther stuff!

I notice you completely ignored poor Frank Pallone's free speech rights twice now. Well, that looks a bit like bias to me but then again, I will not assume it.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by silent thunder
I'm not particularly interested in the "birther" debate per se, and I don't have any real opinions either way, having not paid much attention to it. I consider it part of the dance of distracting partisan politics, the false left-right dicotomy freakshow that only serves to lead away from the real issues.
Yeah, you obviously haven't paid much attention to it so thanks for being honest about that.

One of the biggest birthers is Philip J. Berg, a lifelong democrat:


Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States...

Berg stated...– I am a lifelong Democrat [I ran for U.S. Senate & Governor in Democratic Primaries in Pennsylvania] that blows the theory that this is a right wing conspiracy
so your thought that it's partisan shows how little attention you've paid to it.

Obama was probably born in Hawaii but wants to keep some information on his birth certificate secret, like possibly what race he is, I don't know, just guessing. Some people have speculated that if his birth certificate showed his race as caucasian it might be embarrassing for him but since that's his mother's race it's a possibility. I suspect whatever it is, he's hiding something or else he would have just provided his birth certificate like McCain did, and frankly the questions about McCain's eligibility seemed to be more problematic, but the difference was he produced a birth certificate and discussed it in the open, compared to Obama's secrecy in contrast to his campaign of transparency.

So I can sort of understand why the woman who was arrested isn't convinced, but Obama's probably eligible. It would be nice to know for sure though. All the efforts to get him to show one piece of paper have so far been in vain so maybe she's just frustrated by that. Oh and since you're out of the loop, that piece of paper people want to see is the original birth certificate with the doctor's signature, like the one McCain provided. Obama did provide the computer generated version from the state but absent any doctor's signature.

The state of Hawaii has tried to make press releases reassuring people they have the original on file, but of course that just makes them want to see the original that much more. There were also stories raised about the original being possibly destroyed in a fire, or destroyed by the state, etc, and they are being so coy about what they actually have that nobody outside the office of the state officials seems to know what kind of original record they've got for Obama that would support their computer generated paper.

I am not singling you out Arbitrageur, but it seems to me that you people are seriously nut jobs!
As my son says, has it ever occurred to you that the authorities must have done 'due diligence' years ago, when Obama announced he was running.
Are you birthers as racist as it seems? Would you scream like this if the guy you suspected was a white guy? Nut jobs...

Vicky



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 
yeah just ignore my comment "frankly the questions about McCain's eligibility seemed to be more problematic".

Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Vicky32
 
yeah just ignore my comment "frankly the questions about McCain's eligibility seemed to be more problematic".

Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension?


No, you need to realise that a. I am not American and
b. Nothing about McCain's eligibility was ever published here! I never even knew it was in question... so I never even noticed your comment about him.
Our media are very selective - 90% of television and 70% of radio is American, but even so, we hear a lot about some rather whorish woman with names beginning with K - Khloe? but anything casting doubt on a right-winger like McCain? Fuggedaboudit!
Vicky



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32
b. Nothing about McCain's eligibility was ever published here! I never even knew it was in question... so I never even noticed your comment about him.
The fact that nothing about McCain was ever published there doesn't exactly explain why you didn't notice my comment about him, rather, it suggests you replied to my post without reading it, and reinforces my suggestion that you might want to read posts and comprehend them before responding to them.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join