|
MileHighM -> RE: 5 Kicked Out and 3 Arrested at Paul Ryan Town Hall For Asking Questions (9/8/2011 9:09:51 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
No, it is not legalized slavery, those players can quit and get a different career at any time.
I see what you are doing though, you are applying a double standard to everything I say.
Please show where I have called for a double standard.
One standard for you, your friends and your beliefs and then saying the rest of the world works under different rules. If it is a liberal barking at a conservative, it is a free speech issue according to you. If it is a conservative barking at a liberal, it is a matter of tresspassing according to you.
Please show me where I have said that.
I want the rules to apply fairly in both directions. I don't give a damn what the message is, it doesn't change the rules.
I could not agreee more.
The double standard is in your indignation. Not what you said. You in this case are trying to defend some individuals 'right to free speech,' by arguing that since the forum was by public invitation and not limited to the members of the private rotary club, that some protestor can come and be disruptive. You have said in an earlier post:
quote:
So unless the tickets were sold with the disclaimer that this was a lecture and no questions would be allowed free speech is protected.
One of your assumptions in that statement is that someone should be able to come and ask a question and not be removed. In these forums that is generally true and I agree with you on that premise. However, you make a second assumption, either that these persons were being polite or that they were thrown out simply on the premise that they disagreed with Mr. Ryan. No one has to stand mute, while some asshole tries to shout them down. That is not a constitution obligation of anyone. Once someone becomes rude and offensive it is really at the perview of the event holder to claim that person is no longer welcome. It ceases to be a debate, and becomes a matter of civility. The event being held on private property permits tresspassing laws to be enforced. The protestors were only cited with tresspassing tickets. It is highly doubtful that, when asked, the protestors immediately got quite and politly escorted themselves out. Hence, the police issued legal citations.
As you said:
quote:
They can ask you to leave and if you do not you could be charged with tresspassing.
Private organizations hold public meetings all the time on their property. They are open to the public, yet if you say something dissagreable they can have you removed (sure they will ask you to leave first, if you don't you will be removed, so in essense they are having you removed regardless.) Just because Ryan is a congressman doesn't mean he should have to put up with a heckler.
I have been to a number of public political events with and without public officials. In nearly half of them a protestor was given the boot at some point or another. This has been true for both D's and R's. In every case it wasn't because they asked a poignant question, or courteously stated their displeasure with the official's policies. It was always because someone interrupted a speech, or drolled on screaming slogans, 101 talking points for protestors, profanity, or personal attacks, endlessly trying to tie up the event. When they left politely, I never saw them cuffed or cited. When they refused to move or attacked and officer, they were dragged out, possibly cuffed and usually cited. In all cases, it was a sigh of relief for the crowd. We came to hear them speak and possibly answer some questions. Whenever an opposing question was asked politely the individual was never harrassed or asked to leave. Not always was the question answered well or at all, but no rukus was made over the incident.
Protestors that usually come into events like this, by the nature of their behavior, don't give a shit about being heard or exercising their rights. They are their to create a disturbance for the sole purpose of being tossed. Then they find the nearest camera around, and claim they were violated. It is a silly game and you are dupe for believing they are virtuous.
Finally, your reply to my statement:
quote:
I want the rules to apply fairly in both directions. I don't give a damn what the message is, it doesn't change the rules.
I could not agreee more.
Either, you just admitted to being a hack and feel that the rules shouldn't be applied fairly, and that the content of the message someone is delivering can somehow grant them certain exemptions or conditions. Or, you feel I am being disingenuous in my sentiments, in which case, you still admit to being a hack. My indignation has been focused on public behavior and the inability to behave in discourse, your indignation has been squarely focused on the politics of the matter.
|
|
|
|
