CDZ America Held Hostage by Radical Left?

[jwoodie]

This may sound like a partisan title, but there is no other way to describe the assault on our First Amendment rights. As demonstrated almost daily, there is a sizable and growing segment of our population who seek to silence, by disruption and intimidation, those with whom they disagree. This is happening, more and more often, at educational and political events throughout the country.

The common denominator for these "protests" is the predominance of left-wing activists at these events. Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group? Ironically, this group of activists is the first to accuse the other groups they are trying to silence as "brown shirts" when in fact they are the ones employing the same tactics as the Nazis in the 1930s.

Equally repugnant to our Constitutional rights are those on the sidelines who makes excuses for this wretched behavior, usually in concert with pushing their own political agendas. Can they not see that we are moving towards a South American-style political system where the ignorant masses are beguiled into thinking that they can vote themselves into prosperity, while the elite live behind high walls with armed guards?

Does anyone here not believe that silencing others will lead to silencing everyone?

 

[TheOldSchool]

It is far past time we protected the 1st amendment by banning protests

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"This may sound like a partisan title"

That's because it is a partisan title.

In fact, the thread premise fails as both a straw man fallacy and loaded question fallacy.

One cannot expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a fallacy.

Attempting to blame 'the left' for for the violence and unrest at Trump's events is partisan idiocy – as the blame clearly belongs to Trump who instigates the violence with his rhetoric of bigotry and hate, and his thuggish supporters to carry it out.

 

[jwoodie]

It is far past time we protected the 1st amendment by banning protests

Equally repugnant to our Constitutional rights are those on the sidelines who makes excuses for this wretched behavior, usually in concert with pushing their own political agendas.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Does anyone here not believe that silencing others will lead to silencing everyone?"

No one advocates 'silencing' anyone, the protesters at Trump's events are not seeking to 'silence' anyone.

 

[jwoodie]

Attempting to blame 'the left' for for the violence and unrest at Trump's events is partisan idiocy – as the blame clearly belongs to Trump who instigates the violence with his rhetoric of bigotry and hate, and his thuggish supporters to carry it out.

This is the same as burning books and blaming it on the authors.

 

[aaronleland]

The country was built by violent revolution. You protest peacefully at a Trump rally, and get punched.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group?"

The First Amendment has nothing to do with this.

The doctrine of the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and private organizations.

Only government can seek to restrict or prohibit speech in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence; and when government acts contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence by enacting measures intended to restrict or preempt speech, then and only then does a free speech violation occur.

One private person cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person.

Consequently, when private persons speak out against the hate and bigotry expressed by Trump and most others on the right, such a condemnation neither 'violates' free speech, nor 'silences' Trump and his supporters.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Attempting to blame 'the left' for for the violence and unrest at Trump's events is partisan idiocy – as the blame clearly belongs to Trump who instigates the violence with his rhetoric of bigotry and hate, and his thuggish supporters to carry it out.

This is the same as burning books and blaming it on the authors.

This makes as little sense as the thread premise.

Protesters at Trump events need only be allow to express themselves – and if protesters continue to be disruptive of the event then their removal from the venue is warranted by private security or law enforcement.

The violence occurs when Trump supporters interfere with this process, by engaging in verbal and physical assaults of the protesters as they're either leaving the venue on their own or as compelled by security and law enforcement.

The unprovoked assault by a Trump supporter last Thursday in North Carolina is one of many examples of this.

 

[daws101]

This may sound like a partisan title, but there is no other way to describe the assault on our First Amendment rights. As demonstrated almost daily, there is a sizable and growing segment of our population who seek to silence, by disruption and intimidation, those with whom they disagree. This is happening, more and more often, at educational and political events throughout the country.

The common denominator for these "protests" is the predominance of left-wing activists at these events. Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group? Ironically, this group of activists is the first to accuse the other groups they are trying to silence as "brown shirts" when in fact they are the ones employing the same tactics as the Nazis in the 1930s.

Equally repugnant to our Constitutional rights are those on the sidelines who makes excuses for this wretched behavior, usually in concert with pushing their own political agendas. Can they not see that we are moving towards a South American-style political system where the ignorant masses are beguiled into thinking that they can vote themselves into prosperity, while the elite live behind high walls with armed guards?

Does anyone here not believe that silencing others will lead to silencing everyone?

link?

 

[daws101]

Attempting to blame 'the left' for for the violence and unrest at Trump's events is partisan idiocy – as the blame clearly belongs to Trump who instigates the violence with his rhetoric of bigotry and hate, and his thuggish supporters to carry it out.

This is the same as burning books and blaming it on the authors.

hey asshat! that's why they (whoever they are) burned books in the first place ...
guess what? conservatives do the most banning and book burning.
to silence opposition to their cause .

 

[rdean]

Because the radical left has tried to obstruct everything for the last 7 years. I mean everything. Like.............

........huh?

........what?

........nevermind.

 

[DarkFury]

"Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group?"

The First Amendment has nothing to do with this.

The doctrine of the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and private organizations.

Only government can seek to restrict or prohibit speech in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence; and when government acts contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence by enacting measures intended to restrict or preempt speech, then and only then does a free speech violation occur.

One private person cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person.

Consequently, when private persons speak out against the hate and bigotry expressed by Trump and most others on the right, such a condemnation neither 'violates' free speech, nor 'silences' Trump and his supporters.

When the room is rented by one group to have THEIR freedom of speech and is STOLEN by another group. Then it should be illegal.

 

[daws101]

Book Burning

• Related Articles
• Comments
• How to cite this article

Books and writings deemed "un-German" are burned at the Opernplatz. Berlin, Germany, May 10, 1933.

— National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Md.

• View Photographs
  
• View Map
  
• View Historical Film Footage
  

Book burning refers to the ritual destruction by fire of books or other written materials. Usually carried out in a public context, the burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question.

 

[daws101]

"Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group?"

The First Amendment has nothing to do with this.

The doctrine of the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and private organizations.

Only government can seek to restrict or prohibit speech in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence; and when government acts contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence by enacting measures intended to restrict or preempt speech, then and only then does a free speech violation occur.

One private person cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person.

Consequently, when private persons speak out against the hate and bigotry expressed by Trump and most others on the right, such a condemnation neither 'violates' free speech, nor 'silences' Trump and his supporters.

When the room is rented by one group to have THEIR freedom of speech and is STOLEN by another group. Then it should be illegal.

false! only if it's a closed door event..

 

[Elvis Obama]

Another mindless screed. Yes, the enemy are people who don't agree with you. Pfft. All you have to offer is the stench of your fear.

 

[BULLDOG]

"Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group?"

The First Amendment has nothing to do with this.

The doctrine of the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and private organizations.

Only government can seek to restrict or prohibit speech in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence; and when government acts contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence by enacting measures intended to restrict or preempt speech, then and only then does a free speech violation occur.

One private person cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person.

Consequently, when private persons speak out against the hate and bigotry expressed by Trump and most others on the right, such a condemnation neither 'violates' free speech, nor 'silences' Trump and his supporters.

When the room is rented by one group to have THEIR freedom of speech and is STOLEN by another group. Then it should be illegal.

The situation you describe might have something to do with trespassing,but it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. However,it only includes the specific private area. It doesn't include any public areas outside or adjacent to that area.

 

[daws101]

"Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group?"

The First Amendment has nothing to do with this.

The doctrine of the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and private organizations.

Only government can seek to restrict or prohibit speech in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence; and when government acts contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence by enacting measures intended to restrict or preempt speech, then and only then does a free speech violation occur.

One private person cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person.

Consequently, when private persons speak out against the hate and bigotry expressed by Trump and most others on the right, such a condemnation neither 'violates' free speech, nor 'silences' Trump and his supporters.

When the room is rented by one group to have THEIR freedom of speech and is STOLEN by another group. Then it should be illegal.

The situation you describe might have something to do with trespassing,but it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. However,it only includes the specific private area. It doesn't include any public areas outside or adjacent to that area.

if a group holds a "semi private" function and has signs the read public welcome it's not even trespass.

 

[Asclepias]

"Since when does the First Amendment confer the right of one group to deny the same right to another group?"

The First Amendment has nothing to do with this.

The doctrine of the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and private organizations.

Only government can seek to restrict or prohibit speech in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence; and when government acts contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence by enacting measures intended to restrict or preempt speech, then and only then does a free speech violation occur.

One private person cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person.

Consequently, when private persons speak out against the hate and bigotry expressed by Trump and most others on the right, such a condemnation neither 'violates' free speech, nor 'silences' Trump and his supporters.

When the room is rented by one group to have THEIR freedom of speech and is STOLEN by another group. Then it should be illegal.

Nothing was stolen. If they wanted to have a private party they should have had a members only meeting.

 

[jwoodie]

The country was built by violent revolution. You protest peacefully at a Trump rally, and get punched.

So it's OK if I "peacefully" deprive you of free speech?