joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Fair enough. I'm actually much more on your side on this issue. It's just that phrase that I find jarring. Too much bad history behind it.My feeling is sort of this. He has the right to speech and speak anywhere at anytime on any subject he wants as long as he doesn't assault me or infringe on my rights. Now, my rights don't include peace and enjoyment of a historical monument, but they do include freedom of assembly and ambulation. So, if he does not obstruct me, badger me, or interfere with me directly, than he should be able to say whatever he wants to say... However, the moment he impedes, blocks, or harrasses anyone... the story changes. and this has been my point this entire time..... the complacent will one day wake up and realize they have no rights and wonder where they went and then they will remember joeknows telling them to look up............ incrimentalism..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 and this has been my point this entire time.....the complacent will one day wake up and realize they have no rights and wonder where they went and then they will remember joeknows telling them to look up............ incrimentalism..... Yeah, but you're one of those paranoid, pot smoking hippie types. We start listening to your dillusions and the next thing you know all the walls will be lined with rubber and the price of tin foil will be through the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Disagree with the splitting hairs. And even if I was I could just change the scenario to say the by your logic I should be allowed to hold a concert, or at the very least BLAST my music in the middle of Central Park... or right outside the Liberty Bell. look up...............NOISE POLLUTION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Hey in complete and total contrast and correct me if I am wrong. You are the first Obama supporter, I have agreed with on this board for a long time. FREEDOM!!!!!!! TY I THINK............. I am an american VETERAN first .... then a lib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 TY I THINK............. I am an american VETERAN first .... then a lib Sound like more of a Old School Democrat to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Yeah, but you're one of those paranoid, pot smoking hippie types. We start listening to your dillusions and the next thing you know all the walls will be lined with rubber and the price of tin foil will be through the roof. touche... oooops thats french.... or rather we could all live our lives according to what makes YOU feel good or by what is right in YOUR myopic view of the world....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Sound like more of a Old School Democrat to me. actually i used to be a republican.......... until 8 years ago....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 touche... oooops thats french.... or rather we could all live our lives according to what makes YOU feel good or by what is right in YOUR myopic view of the world....... Ha ha ha... I don't think you really know me that well. I'm probably closer to agreeing with you than you think - I think we've just drawn different lines in the slippery slope. You say 'noise pollution', I say 'freedom of speech' zones. I think that I just think there is less of a line between the two than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 actually i used to be a republican.......... until 8 years ago....... Based on what I have read in this thread, you will be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Based on what I have read in this thread, you will be back. doubtful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Ha ha ha... I don't think you really know me that well. I'm probably closer to agreeing with you than you think - I think we've just drawn different lines in the slippery slope. You say 'noise pollution', I say 'freedom of speech' zones. I think that I just think there is less of a line between the two than you do. i think the biggest point im trying to make is that there is more burden of proof required from those claiming disturbing the peace in a public area than in my neighborhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 this is an interesting one. As much of a proponent of free speech and the constitution I am, I also understand not wanting to be forced to listen to someone while waiting in line. its not like they can just avoid him. its almost as if the price of admission is being forced to hear his propaganda. I would like there to be a way to avoid that without infringing on freedom of speech, but i can't imagine a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 this is an interesting one. As much of a proponent of free speech and the constitution I am, I also understand not wanting to be forced to listen to someone while waiting in line. its not like they can just avoid him. its almost as if the price of admission is being forced to hear his propaganda. I would like there to be a way to avoid that without infringing on freedom of speech, but i can't imagine a way. and so we must err on the side of freedom...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Ha ha ha... I don't think you really know me that well. I'm probably closer to agreeing with you than you think - I think we've just drawn different lines in the slippery slope. You say 'noise pollution', I say 'freedom of speech' zones. I think that I just think there is less of a line between the two than you do. "Freedom of Speech zones" ???? WTF is that? How dare these people protest the war in a public area, arrest them. These people are blocking the streets arrest them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 "Freedom of Speech zones" ???? WTF is that? How dare these people protest the war in a public area, arrest them. You do realize I was referring to language from the original article, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Agree wholeheartedly with joeknows. I think anyone who knows me here would know the last thing I care for is evangelism. However, he has every right to do what he did. Once again, people are confusing freedom of speech with freedom from speech. Whether it's in the name of political correctness or "I should be able to pictures quietly at this monument and not hear this guy" you're mistaken and confused in whose rights are being violated in the two instances. I mean seriously, if I have a right not to hear this guy in a public place, then dammit, I want the right to have babies banned from the park, too. I'm not going to have one of those little ****ers crying ruin my (apparently) constitutionally guaranteed right to not be bothered by noise during my quiet day at the park. That's all it is people, noise. Treat it like a baby who's diaper is full of brown goodness and tell me who's rights are being violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 So Corcaigh, let me borrow your logic.I come to this message board to relax, chat with friends, and discuss the issues of the day. I don't come to see someone regularly post what I perceive to be anti-Christian threads. So out of respect for me, and my rights, shouldn't you have to go post elsewhere? where your analogy falls apart, however, is that you do have an ignore button you can utilize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Based on what I have read in this thread, you will be back. Why would you wish that on someone? Not all addicts fall back into self destructive habits. Some manage to stay saved. :halo: Honestly, I wish citizens would lose the tags. It is absolutely ridiculous how strident and Party oriented some seem to be. So many (here on ES) seem to be about Party before country. When their party blows it they still feel the need to defend them. Republican and Democrat are empty titles. It needs to become about the ideas again. It needs to become about responsibility and accountability again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Agree wholeheartedly with joeknows. I think anyone who knows me here would know the last thing I care for is evangelism. However, he has every right to do what he did. Once again, people are confusing freedom of speech with freedom from speech. Whether it's in the name of political correctness or "I should be able to pictures quietly at this monument and not hear this guy" you're mistaken and confused in whose rights are being violated in the two instances.I mean seriously, if I have a right not to hear this guy in a public place, then dammit, I want the right to have babies banned from the park, too. I'm not going to have one of those little ****ers crying ruin my (apparently) constitutionally guaranteed right to not be bothered by noise during my quiet day at the park. That's all it is people, noise. Treat it like a baby who's diaper is full of brown goodness and tell me who's rights are being violated. So let me ask you this - does he have the right to play 2 Live Crew at an audible level? Or even Metallica? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 language smanguage........... im not playing semantics here.... the whole idea of free speech zones is in direct contrast to the 1st amendment....... what is soooooo hard to understand about that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 language smanguage........... im not playing semantics here....the whole idea of free speech zones is in direct contrast to the 1st amendment....... what is soooooo hard to understand about that?? This I agree with. The country is a free speech zone. You can't put your hands on me to force you to listen to me, but if I'm in your vicinity you can say anything you want to. (although there are laws against inciting violence, slander, etc. but I don't think that is applicable in this case) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Why would you wish that on someone? Not all addicts fall back into self destructive habits. Some manage to stay saved.:halo: Honestly, I wish citizens would lose the tags. It is absolutely ridiculous how strident and Party oriented some seem to be. So many (here on ES) seem to be about Party before country. When their party blows it they still feel the need to defend them. Republican and Democrat are empty titles. It needs to become about the ideas again. It needs to become about responsibility and accountability again. I agree, however I will always fight against people taking away peoples freedoms. This isn't just coming from me, those who disagree with Obama tend to see him as someone what of a radical, extreme leftist who is bordering on taking this country down the Socialism/Communist road. It is hard to stand next to your fellow Americans when you see our Great country getting ready to fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 language smanguage........... im not playing semantics here....the whole idea of free speech zones is in direct contrast to the 1st amendment....... what is soooooo hard to understand about that?? What's so hard for me to understand is why you draw a line between that and the whole noise ordinance/pollution thing. Why is that law more viable? Just because its older? If the Liberty Bell people truly did have ordinances drawn up that state you are not allow to practice this type of speech within a given distance why do they not have a right to enforce that ordinance? You seem to be cherry picking which laws should be applied and which shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 So let me ask you this - does he have the right to play 2 Live Crew at an audible level? Or even Metallica? In my opinion, yes. But that (along with my baby analogy) are tougher waters to tread because you're not stopping someone from expressing anything so much as just annoying people without a point. Metallica's worse than 2 Live Crew? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Corcaigh - look one of 'them' agrees with us. And its a big one of 'them'. :laugh: Techboy's not one of them. He claims he is, but he's too reasonable to be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.