CDZ Where one's rights begin and end re: the 1st Amendment's guarantees

[Skull Pilot]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

So now you think you can determine what tactics they will use? It was a public event. The public was allowed to attend. Even the ones who disagree with trump.

Actually the person who paid for the venue has the right to allow or not allow anyone they want into said venue

These people don't understand that while they may have the right to free speech, no one is obligated to provide a venue for that speech

As I stated in my earlier post, none of this is written in stone. Change the members of the SC, and poof, your so-called rights vanish. Declare a private institution a "public accommodation" and their right to discriminate vanishes. Should a presidential campaign have the right to discriminate? Should a private club have the right to refuse membership to women? Once upon a time there was no question about this. Now? The firm ground that such private organizations used to stand on has turned to jello. Personally, I say good. Screw them. This is how power is denied to entire groups of people, based solely on their identity. Power to the people is the principle I support, not power to the powerful.

A presidential campaign has the right to make sure everyone who attends their functions is a supporter, merely because they paid a fee? Absurd. And what if someone is uncommitted, and wishes to attend the event in order to help them make up their mind? What if someone enters the event with one position, and then, based on what takes place at the event, changes their mind? Aren't there practical limits to such so-called rights? Are there not important rights on both sides of the equation which need to be balanced? Does the status quo represent a perfection of the underlying principles, or a perversion of them? According to whom, Clarence Thomas or Notorious RBG?

None of this sick garbage should be tolerated. There should be public funding of campaigns, and only public funding of campaigns. This is an exercise of democratic principles, not an infomercial.

Sorry I don't want my tax money wasted on campaigns. My god if we were footing the bill we'd have 500 candidates for every election and none of them would ever drop out of the race because they don't have to raise money

And as far as who is allowed into a venue that is 100% up to the people paying for the space. If I rent a conference room for my business meeting I do not have to allow anyone from any business to attend do I?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

So now you think you can determine what tactics they will use? It was a public event. The public was allowed to attend. Even the ones who disagree with trump.

Actually the person who paid for the venue has the right to allow or not allow anyone they want into said venue

These people don't understand that while they may have the right to free speech, no one is obligated to provide a venue for that speech

Nobody was asking for one to be provided. Their right didn't require that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

So now you think you can determine what tactics they will use? It was a public event. The public was allowed to attend. Even the ones who disagree with trump.

Actually the person who paid for the venue has the right to allow or not allow anyone they want into said venue

These people don't understand that while they may have the right to free speech, no one is obligated to provide a venue for that speech

Nobody was asking for one to be provided. Their right didn't require that.

But yet people whine about first amendment rights when they get turned away from a private venue

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

So now you think you can determine what tactics they will use? It was a public event. The public was allowed to attend. Even the ones who disagree with trump.

Actually the person who paid for the venue has the right to allow or not allow anyone they want into said venue

These people don't understand that while they may have the right to free speech, no one is obligated to provide a venue for that speech

As I stated in my earlier post, none of this is written in stone. Change the members of the SC, and poof, your so-called rights vanish. Declare a private institution a "public accommodation" and their right to discriminate vanishes. Should a presidential campaign have the right to discriminate? Should a private club have the right to refuse membership to women? Once upon a time there was no question about this. Now? The firm ground that such private organizations used to stand on has turned to jello. Personally, I say good. Screw them. This is how power is denied to entire groups of people, based solely on their identity. Power to the people is the principle I support, not power to the powerful.

A presidential campaign has the right to make sure everyone who attends their functions is a supporter, merely because they paid a fee? Absurd. And what if someone is uncommitted, and wishes to attend the event in order to help them make up their mind? What if someone enters the event with one position, and then, based on what takes place at the event, changes their mind? Aren't there practical limits to such so-called rights? Are there not important rights on both sides of the equation which need to be balanced? Does the status quo represent a perfection of the underlying principles, or a perversion of them? According to whom, Clarence Thomas or Notorious RBG?

None of this sick garbage should be tolerated. There should be public funding of campaigns, and only public funding of campaigns. This is an exercise of democratic principles, not an infomercial.

Sorry I don't want my tax money wasted on campaigns. My god if we were footing the bill we'd have 500 candidates for every election and none of them would ever drop out of the race because they don't have to raise money

And as far as who is allowed into a venue that is 100% up to the people paying for the space. If I rent a conference room for my business meeting I do not have to allow anyone from any business to attend do I?

We're talking about an electoral system which, IMO, does not work at all. Whatever changes we make will have both positive and negative consequences. Your point about winnowing candidates is valid, and I know of many other problems such a system would encounter. There will be constitutional challenges, as has occurred on the state level with such initiatives. The idea currently has little popular support.

What we have is a fundamental choice. Allow the system to continue down the path it is on, where money is corrupting the process beyond recognition, or attempt reform. The unlimited spending of Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess currently allows for billionaires to control when candidates are forced out of races. That is anti-democratic, a situation which makes a mockery of the one man/one vote principle.

In my concept of an ideal system, there would be severe limitations to campaigning. If I were allowed to design a system I would adopt the policy of England and Norway and ban television advertising for political purposes (though not as strict a ban as England currently has, which outlaws NGOs from advertising). That would reduce the costs quite a bit. The cost to the individual citizen would be negligible. We should allow only what is needed for the efficient functioning of the democratic process. Each candidate steps to the plate and offers their vision for the country and the specific policy proposals they recommend to achieve that vision. If a candidate opens their mouth to tell us what we should think about the other guy, they should be stopped from doing so (Ideally through direct expressions of voter displeasure. Rotten fruit is a pretty effective means of commentary, but booing would suffice. Electric shocks would be emotionally satisfying, but perhaps a bit barbaric.). I don't need anyone to tell me what to think about the other guy. Low energy? A loser? Please. Just offer us your proposals, then shut up.

A business has the right to manage their affairs as they see fit, but if it is a publicly traded company they shouldn't be able to prevent shareholders from attending quarterly report meetings and the like. As far as presidential campaigns go, we are all shareholders in that process, and we should be allowed in, and allowed to have a voice.