Democrat .. No Free Speech Zones

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Nope .. A different Point of View ... it's just not Allowed.

Where else will Trump not be allowed to speak in America without the liberal pc nazi's threatening violence and hate?

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

 

[peach174]

Nope .. A different Point of View ... it's just not Allowed.

Where else will Trump not be allowed to speak in America without the liberal pc nazi's threatening violence and hate?

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

He chose to not speak in Chicago because it was made dangerous for American citizens trying to exercise free speech and right of assembly by professional Democratic Party radical protesters and assorted liberal loons.

Saying he could speak somewhere else isn't the point, Say you travel many hours and spend 4 hours in a line only to have your event cancelled times many thousands of others...you'd be thrilled right, best night ever...

The best part is you have to get you and your family through crowds of belligerent assholes screaming vulgarities and exercising their right of left wing hate speech, then drive 4 hrs. home rightfully pissed.

Made dangerous? Even when the police didn't say anything? He made this choice and STILL SAID WHAT HE WANTED TO SAY.

He was not prevented from saying what he wanted to say. He was prevented from doing what he wanted to do, that's different.

Whether people stood in line to hear he next superstar speak and then it was cancelled is neither here nor there when it comes to whether free speech had been taken away or not.

People might be pissed, but Trump could still say what he wanted to say. He wasn't stopped from saying anything he wanted to say, was he?

He certainly was to that crowd that wanted to hear him speak in Chicago.

 

[peach174]

Trump is reaping what HE sowed.......as George Wallace also found out.

Trump sowed nothing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope .. A different Point of View ... it's just not Allowed.

Where else will Trump not be allowed to speak in America without the liberal pc nazi's threatening violence and hate?

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

Wrong.

And yet again – the concept of free speech in the context of the Constitution and First Amendment jurisprudence concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations.

Example:

Trump goes to Ohio to give a speech. Kasich, Trump's political opponent, ramrods a measure through the Ohio legislature making it a felony for Trump to give a speech in the state and for any person in the state to speak in favor of Trump, where violators of the 'law' would be subject to arrest, criminal prosecution, and incarceration in an effort to silence Trump and his supporters.

This would be a violation of Trump's right to free speech, where Trump could sue in Federal court and have the measure invalidated as a violation of the First Amendment, a violation on the part of government.

Trump is a private citizen at his events, as are his supporters attending, as well as the protesters – all private persons in a private venue – where no matter how disruptive the protesters might be, Trump's 'free speech' has not been 'violated.'

Indeed, this is a matter of criminal law, where the protesters can be compelled to leave by private security or law enforcement, and subject to arrest if warranted.

Americans place great value on the right to free speech – as they should; the problem is that Trump supporters and others on the right are misappropriating and misapplying the doctrine of free speech in bad faith, attempting to use 'free speech' as a political weapon against their opponents, when in fact they succeed in only making themselves appear ignorant and ridiculous.

 

[Mac1958]

Nope .. A different Point of View ... it's just not Allowed.

Where else will Trump not be allowed to speak in America without the liberal pc nazi's threatening violence and hate?

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

This is a cultural issue, not a Constitutional issue.

The PC Police are not behaving unconstitutionally when they shut down opposing speech.

They have found a way to use your own freedoms against you.

Against the spirit of freedom of speech, of course. But not unconstitutional.
.

 

[nat4900]

Trump is reaping what HE sowed.......as George Wallace also found out.

Trump sowed nothing.

Call it what any of you right wingers want, but when Trump, the clown states:

"Knock the hell out of them. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

....then he IS reaping what he sowed....

 

[kaz]

Nope .. A different Point of View ... it's just not Allowed.

Where else will Trump not be allowed to speak in America without the liberal pc nazi's threatening violence and hate?

Free speech isn't allowed anywhere to the left, not just in zones. By free speech, they mean they can speak whatever they want and they should not have to hear things they disagree with

 

[kaz]

Trump is reaping what HE sowed.......as George Wallace also found out.

Trump sowed nothing.

Call it what any of you right wingers want, but when Trump, the clown states:

"Knock the hell out of them. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

....then he IS reaping what he sowed....

Gotcha, defending yourself really is actually causing the violence

Moron

 

[kaz]

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

He chose to not speak in Chicago because it was made dangerous for American citizens trying to exercise free speech and right of assembly by professional Democratic Party radical protesters and assorted liberal loons.

Saying he could speak somewhere else isn't the point, Say you travel many hours and spend 4 hours in a line only to have your event cancelled times many thousands of others...you'd be thrilled right, best night ever...

The best part is you have to get you and your family through crowds of belligerent assholes screaming vulgarities and exercising their right of left wing hate speech, then drive 4 hrs. home rightfully pissed.

Anyone who says Trump's freedom of speech wasn't violated in Shitcago is a douche bag. Trump called off his speech there for the same reason that you might hand over your wallet to a mugger. It isn't voluntary. frigidweirdo is defending thugs. That makes him as bad as the thugs. Anyone defending these "protesters" is automatically a douche bag.

Anyone who says his Free Speech was violated, doesn't understand the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say leftists can freely assault people they disagree with? I can't find that part

 

[Mac1958]

The PC Police are proud of the way they've been able to shut down and intimidate opposing speech legally.

That's how zealots are. The end justifies the means.
.

 

[kaz]

Ya'll should read the Constitution. The 1st Amendment is about the government doing it. It is not a violation of Free Speech to tell stupid ass Trump supporters that they are stupid ass Trump supporters. Heck, it's not a violation of Free Speech to yell it during his rallies. It's also not a violation of Free Speech to have the yeller removed. See how that works?

Sorry, douche bag, but using violence and intimidation to stop someone from speaking is a violation of free speech. I know Stalinists like you don't want to admit what you are, but you've all made that quite obvious by defending the thugs in Shitcago.

Who said anything about using violence? When did I defend what happened in Chicago? My support for their protest ends if they are the first to resort to violence.

So it's ended then?

 

[bripat9643]

Trump is reaping what HE sowed.......as George Wallace also found out.

What did he sew? What gives these thugs the right to obstruct law abiding people from going about their business? The only thing Trump has done is express opinions the thugs don't like. It's not different than Germany just before Hitler became dictator when his storm troopers descended on anyone who expressed any opinions he didn't like.

Everyone who supports this kind of behavior is identifying himself as a thug and a douche bag. You certainly don't believe in freedom of speech.

The irony of the situation is that this will only make Trump more popular.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives continue to make the mistake of referring to this issue as a "free speech" problem.

The PC Police, as we see on this thread, can wiggle out of that one. They know that they can very effectively leverage freedom of speech against you, to shut you down, to intimidate you, to disrupt your speech, to punish you. All perfectly legal and constitutional.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's a cultural issue. A group of people who have found a way to control opposing speech, perhaps because they're not confident enough in their positions. They do not want opposing speech to see the light of day.
.

Hmmm, no, intimidation, shutting people down and disrupting private events are all illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope .. A different Point of View ... it's just not Allowed.

Where else will Trump not be allowed to speak in America without the liberal pc nazi's threatening violence and hate?

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

Wrong.

And yet again – the concept of free speech in the context of the Constitution and First Amendment jurisprudence concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations.

Example:

Trump goes to Ohio to give a speech. Kasich, Trump's political opponent, ramrods a measure through the Ohio legislature making it a felony for Trump to give a speech in the state and for any person in the state to speak in favor of Trump, where violators of the 'law' would be subject to arrest, criminal prosecution, and incarceration in an effort to silence Trump and his supporters.

This would be a violation of Trump's right to free speech, where Trump could sue in Federal court and have the measure invalidated as a violation of the First Amendment, a violation on the part of government.

Trump is a private citizen at his events, as are his supporters attending, as well as the protesters – all private persons in a private venue – where no matter how disruptive the protesters might be, Trump's 'free speech' has not been 'violated.'

Indeed, this is a matter of criminal law, where the protesters can be compelled to leave by private security or law enforcement, and subject to arrest if warranted.

Americans place great value on the right to free speech – as they should; the problem is that Trump supporters and others on the right are misappropriating and misapplying the doctrine of free speech in bad faith, attempting to use 'free speech' as a political weapon against their opponents, when in fact they succeed in only making themselves appear ignorant and ridiculous.

You're a Stalinist douche bag. The protesters have no right to disrupt Trump's events. You cannot interfere with people going about their business. That's basically assault. They can carry signs and shout and yell, but that's all they can do. They can't enter a private venue, obstruct traffic, or obstruct Trump's event or his audience in any way.

 

[bripat9643]

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

He chose to not speak in Chicago because it was made dangerous for American citizens trying to exercise free speech and right of assembly by professional Democratic Party radical protesters and assorted liberal loons.

Saying he could speak somewhere else isn't the point, Say you travel many hours and spend 4 hours in a line only to have your event cancelled times many thousands of others...you'd be thrilled right, best night ever...

The best part is you have to get you and your family through crowds of belligerent assholes screaming vulgarities and exercising their right of left wing hate speech, then drive 4 hrs. home rightfully pissed.

Anyone who says Trump's freedom of speech wasn't violated in Shitcago is a douche bag. Trump called off his speech there for the same reason that you might hand over your wallet to a mugger. It isn't voluntary. frigidweirdo is defending thugs. That makes him as bad as the thugs. Anyone defending these "protesters" is automatically a douche bag.

Anyone who says his Free Speech was violated, doesn't understand the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say leftists can freely assault people they disagree with? I can't find that part

These people are fascists. They make it more obvious with every post. It's hilarious to watch them attacking Trump and comparing him to Hitler when they endorse all of Hitler's methods!

 

[bripat9643]

Trump is reaping what HE sowed.......as George Wallace also found out.

Trump sowed nothing.

Call it what any of you right wingers want, but when Trump, the clown states:

"Knock the hell out of them. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

....then he IS reaping what he sowed....

No he isn't. You're taking that statement out of context. He was referring to a leftwing thug who was planning to throw tomatoes at Trump. That's assault. If someone assaults you, then you are well within your rights to administer a beating to him.

Even if your characterization was correct, that gives no license to anyone to shut down Trump's events. These people are thugs. Their tactics are no better than the Nazi tactics that brought Hitler to power. You're endorsing fascism. You're a thug and a douche bag.

 

[peach174]

Trump is reaping what HE sowed.......as George Wallace also found out.

Trump sowed nothing.

Call it what any of you right wingers want, but when Trump, the clown states:

"Knock the hell out of them. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

....then he IS reaping what he sowed....

Taken totally out of context.
What he really said;
“So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously,” he said. “OK, just knock the hell — I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won’t be so much because the courts agree with us, too.”

So what would you do if you got a tomato throwed at you Nat?
I sure would knock the hell out of them getting my good blouse ruined, whether or not Trump promised to pay for legal fees or not.
To me it would be worth going to small claims court to get the cost of my ruined blouse back.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Trump is reaping what HE sowed.......as George Wallace also found out.

You could say it's the result of what the liberal Democrats and, most assuredly, this president has brought upon themselves. Remember, it was this administration who felt the need to go after an Arizona governor for assisting in the enforcement of Federal Immigration laws, while looking the other way with Sanctuary Cities in California who intentionally withheld immigrant repeat offender felons from the INS. These immigrant felons were then involved in killing US civilians. What did the president do about it? Who does Obama give attention to? How about the community in Roseburg Oregon? Who very specifically stated from the beginning that they didn't want the president there to exploit the tragedy to "publicize" and tout his gun regulation efforts. Also, anytime a president publicly insults voters, in the case of the Republican Senate majority victory, by stating it simply must have been those 2/3 that didn't bother to vote and oh by the way ... "I hear you." ... you are going to divide and anger a nation. If we had a president that showed ANY respect for the people in this country... or at least show respect towards our system of government and the Constitution, instead of complaining about how he is going to "go around Congress" through executive order because he just can't get his way... then democrats would not have created the angry surge we now see in this election cycle. I'm not sure liberals are coming to the realization, that they must reap the price of division that they have intentionally sown through this administration. Why else do we find such a vast majority of who believe this nation is heading in the wrong direction?

 

[bripat9643]

Trump is reaping what HE sowed.......as George Wallace also found out.

Trump sowed nothing.

Call it what any of you right wingers want, but when Trump, the clown states:

"Knock the hell out of them. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

....then he IS reaping what he sowed....

Taken totally out of context.
What he really said;
“So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously,” he said. “OK, just knock the hell — I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won’t be so much because the courts agree with us, too.”

So what would you do if you got a tomato throwed at you?
I sure would knock the hell out of them getting my good blouse ruined, whether or not Trump promised to pay for legal fees or not.
To me it would be worth going to small claims court to get the cost of my ruined blouse back.

If someone starts throwing tomatoes, they deserve to get the crap knocked out of them.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Nope .. A different Point of View ... it's just not Allowed.

Where else will Trump not be allowed to speak in America without the liberal pc nazi's threatening violence and hate?

Free speech is not the ability to talk where you like when you like.

So, if you and your other half are doing it in the bedroom and you stop me reading from Shakespeare, is this preventing free speech? NO.

Trump isn't being prevented from saying what he wants at all. He choose to cancel his speech but he still made it somewhere else.

So, stop talking nonsense.

Sheesh, that was weak, would you like to try again?

Nope. I'll stand by it regardless of whether you think it's weak or not. Would you like to respond to my comments or just make silly ass statements that don't do anything but avoid the topic WHICH YOU STARTED?

A candidate should be allowed to hold their own peaceful rally in the building and forum of their choosing, without having a group of disruptive demonstrators feeling the need to make a scene in order to silence the opposition. Those who support it likewise don't find anything wrong with a Congressman yelling "You lie!" In the middle of a Presidential address. It is, after all, also considered free speech according to the Constitution. Right?

Wrong.

And yet again – the concept of free speech in the context of the Constitution and First Amendment jurisprudence concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations.

Example:

Trump goes to Ohio to give a speech. Kasich, Trump's political opponent, ramrods a measure through the Ohio legislature making it a felony for Trump to give a speech in the state and for any person in the state to speak in favor of Trump, where violators of the 'law' would be subject to arrest, criminal prosecution, and incarceration in an effort to silence Trump and his supporters.

This would be a violation of Trump's right to free speech, where Trump could sue in Federal court and have the measure invalidated as a violation of the First Amendment, a violation on the part of government.

Trump is a private citizen at his events, as are his supporters attending, as well as the protesters – all private persons in a private venue – where no matter how disruptive the protesters might be, Trump's 'free speech' has not been 'violated.'

Indeed, this is a matter of criminal law, where the protesters can be compelled to leave by private security or law enforcement, and subject to arrest if warranted.

Americans place great value on the right to free speech – as they should; the problem is that Trump supporters and others on the right are misappropriating and misapplying the doctrine of free speech in bad faith, attempting to use 'free speech' as a political weapon against their opponents, when in fact they succeed in only making themselves appear ignorant and ridiculous.

Let me show you where you are SO incorrect in your statement.

Can demonstrators who oppose abortion, demonstrate by keeping those who wish to enter from freely utilizing the facility? Can they disrupt the staff by overcrowding the waiting area in vocal protest? Are the protestors even allowed to enter the facility at all and simply vocally state their views or just choose to be disruptive as a form of "free speech"? Would even PLACING yourself in the medical facility to oppose abortion be seen as putting yourself in a position that could lead to the situation becoming confrontational?

Then for what purpose, other than placing yourself in a position of confrontation with supporters would you place yourself in an organized political assembly, instead of demonstrating your position outside in a more "peaceful" protest? Outside demonstrators are utilizing their right to freedom of speech, inside disrupters are there for one purpose ... to elicit confrontation and aggression, not for free speech. Sorry, but that's the underlying truth.