Freedom of Speech: Where's the Line?

[Spare_change]

While there is a right to speak there is no right to be heard. There is no right to stop traffic to force people to listen. There is no right to invade a mall so that the captive audience is forced to listen. There is no right to raise awareness in those that have no desire to listen. There is a right to shout on the municipal steps. There is no right to block the doors so you can be heard.

I don't think protesters should be allowed to disrupt commerce,block traffic,show up at stores and not allow
people who want to spend the evening living their lives.
They should apply in advance of their protest to the local police and get a permit....

Then protest their fucking asses off if they so do desire.

Mayor De Blasio is out of his fucking mind allowing the recent protests in NYC to go on as they did.

The original American patriots who threw tea into the water in Boston harbor were disrupting commerce, which you of course disapprove of. The right wing members on this board would be calling for their heads. "Get Paul Revere, Sam Adams, and that progressive son of a whore John Hancock" would be the new conservative battle cry.

Does it bother you that you know less about genuine American history than my six-year-old has gleaned from watching "Schoolhouse Rock"? I'm not saying SHR isn't excellent for kids, but really, shouldn't an adult have a more in-depth and detailed knowledge of what he's talking about before spewing?

Most of "the original American patriots" - meaning the leaders of the American Revolution - disapproved of the Boston Tea Party. They viewed it as an embarrassing descent into mob behavior which did more to damage their cause than to help it. Benjamin Franklin even demanded that the India Tea Company be reimbursed. Also, although Sam Adams publicly defended the act afterward, and he and the others were members of the "Sons of Liberty", it is by no means proven that any of those three actually took part. For obvious reasons, none of the participants were eager to brag about it, and many of them took the secret of their involvement to the grave. It is known that in the aftermath, Paul Revere punished a participant who stole some of the tea, which is a bit different from your modern-day "heroes" and their widespread looting, no?

Furthermore, Sam Adams only endorsed this protest because other means of redress - such as voting - were not available. I note that this is not the case with any of the rampaging savages you so admire.

Careful, kiddo ---- they don't' know how to handle facts.

 

[Contumacious]

Freedom of Speech: Where's the Line?


?

There is NO Line.


.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Freedom of Speech: Where's the Line?
?

There is NO Line.

Oh, but there is, several actually.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While there is a right to speak there is no right to be heard. There is no right to stop traffic to force people to listen. There is no right to invade a mall so that the captive audience is forced to listen. There is no right to raise awareness in those that have no desire to listen. There is a right to shout on the municipal steps. There is no right to block the doors so you can be heard.

I don't think protesters should be allowed to disrupt commerce,block traffic,show up at stores and not allow
people who want to spend the evening living their lives.
They should apply in advance of their protest to the local police and get a permit....

Then protest their fucking asses off if they so do desire.

Mayor De Blasio is out of his fucking mind allowing the recent protests in NYC to go on as they did.

The original American patriots who threw tea into the water in Boston harbor were disrupting commerce, which you of course disapprove of. The right wing members on this board would be calling for their heads. "Get Paul Revere, Sam Adams, and that progressive son of a whore John Hancock" would be the new conservative battle cry.

Does it bother you that you know less about genuine American history than my six-year-old has gleaned from watching "Schoolhouse Rock"? I'm not saying SHR isn't excellent for kids, but really, shouldn't an adult have a more in-depth and detailed knowledge of what he's talking about before spewing?

Most of "the original American patriots" - meaning the leaders of the American Revolution - disapproved of the Boston Tea Party. They viewed it as an embarrassing descent into mob behavior which did more to damage their cause than to help it. Benjamin Franklin even demanded that the India Tea Company be reimbursed. Also, although Sam Adams publicly defended the act afterward, and he and the others were members of the "Sons of Liberty", it is by no means proven that any of those three actually took part. For obvious reasons, none of the participants were eager to brag about it, and many of them took the secret of their involvement to the grave. It is known that in the aftermath, Paul Revere punished a participant who stole some of the tea, which is a bit different from your modern-day "heroes" and their widespread looting, no?

Furthermore, Sam Adams only endorsed this protest because other means of redress - such as voting - were not available. I note that this is not the case with any of the rampaging savages you so admire.

Careful, kiddo ---- they don't' know how to handle facts.

I was hoping his head would implode.