- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Where Does the First Amendment Guarantee you a Stage and a Microphone?
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:14 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:14 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
That's you guys.
This is your biggest problem right here. You just assume people's ideology based on individual issues. You assume everyone either thinks exactly as you do, or they are a leftist. Newsflash: opinions are not black and white. Politics isn't heads or tails. And sometimes people actually form their own instead of just following along with a political party. You are too dense to see that. Go read your Milo book and cry yourself to sleep.
1
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:15 pm to ShortyRob
Would it help you to understand me if I told you my feelings on ANTIFA and violent protesters? They are filthy pieces of human garbage. They are cowards. They should all be locked up and have the key thrown away.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:15 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I Don't think anyone is special.
EVERYONE should be able to speak without fear of assault by his fellow Americans.
Now. If universities want to ban ALL speakers, then have at it.
But this practice of accepting SOME speakers but not others due to "Security concerns" is totalitarian bull shite.
Spoiler alert. If violent a-holes were preventing someone YOU liked from speaking, I'd say EXACTLY the same thing.
Spoiler alert 2. Spencer is a choad.
And charging one speaker an enourmouse fee for security but not another group is violating the equal protection clause of the COTUS as well. Yet another case of Trump not playing hardball with these people. I would have sued Berkely in federal court immediately for those violations.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:16 pm to AggieDub14
quote:Someone who is willing to say that SOME people can speak at colleges but that others can be told no simply because violent assholes make it expensive is left whether they realize it or not.
This is your biggest problem right here. You just assume people's ideology based on individual issues.
Sorry you don't understand that.
quote:You're too dense to see that your position, acted upon fully, means that certain ideologies can simply be closed out of the public forum.
And sometimes people actually form their own instead of just following along with a political party. You are too dense to see that
quote:I wouldn't recognize the Milo book if you placed it in front of me. Ya know, since you're talking about assumptions.
Go read your Milo book and cry yourself to sleep.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:16 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Last night on Tucker Carlson there was a lawyer who was actually arguing that the First Amendment guarantees your right to block a major highway and keep people from traveling.
Now that , in this case, guy should lose his law license IMMEDIATELY.
That lawyer is an idiot. You can't block roads. Taxpayers pay for roads to drive on. Idk about losing his license. Maybe the state bar should threaten to suspend his license temporarily if he doesn't correct his statement.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:17 pm to AggieDub14
quote:Woo hoo.
Would it help you to understand me if I told you my feelings on ANTIFA and violent protesters? They are filthy pieces of human garbage. They are cowards. They should all be locked up and have the key thrown away.
I can imagine in 1950 if I said, "well, I really don't like the KKK but I don't see why the government should go to any extra effort to protect black people who want to speak in the south............no one has a right to a platform!!!!".
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:18 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Someone who is willing to say that SOME people can speak at colleges but that others can be told no simply because violent assholes make it expensive is left whether they realize it or not.
But that isn't how I feel about the issue. That's part of it, but for me it's more about are people going to listen to you. If you aren't invited, AND it is going to cost taxpayer money, then you shouldn't have a stage and a microphone.
quote:
certain ideologies
It isn't specific to any ideology. It's purely if the audience as asked you to be there or if you are just inserting yourself.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:19 pm to AggieDub14
quote:a
That lawyer is an idiot. You can't block roads. Taxpayers pay for roads to drive on. Idk about losing his license. Maybe the state bar should threaten to suspend his license temporarily if he doesn't correct his statement.
Additionally, this guy is the first illegal alien to be licenses to practice law in New York. Really helps their cause there LOL
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:20 pm to ShortyRob
No one should have to worry about threats of violence. I think there has been a disconnect in our arguments because we've both been tunnel visioned. I think we agree more than we realize.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:21 pm to AggieDub14
quote:Does the school allow other uninvited people to speak if they pay a fee?
But that isn't how I feel about the issue. That's part of it, but for me it's more about are people going to listen to you. If you aren't invited, AND it is going to cost taxpayer money, then you shouldn't have a stage and a microphone.
If yes.........well, you figure it out.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:23 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
But that isn't how I feel about the issue. That's part of it, but for me it's more about are people going to listen to you. If you aren't invited, AND it is going to cost taxpayer money, then you shouldn't have a stage and a microphone.
It feels like you are talking about college campuses here, and in those cases, all of these people have been invited.
Let me ask you, do you know who Alan Dershowitz is? Of course you do.
He was on Tucker the other night and he said a group of students invited him to speak at Berkely. Berkely found out about this, and you know what they did ? They changed the rules for speaking on campus to read that a department chair had to invite you before you would be allowed to speak.
Now CLEARLY that is Berkely attempting to violate the First Amendment rights of those students who wish to hear the Professor speak, and of the Professor himself.
He has stated that if they don't alllow him to speak, he will sue them. In the particular case of college campuses (or other government venues) then yes, you do have a right to a stage and a microphone. A college can't pick and choose who they will allow to speak based on political ideology.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:24 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Freedom of Speech gives you a voice and no one can take that away from you. But it doesn't guarantee you a stage and a microphone. Why do people think this? You don't have a right to force people to listen. You have a right to speak your voice. No one else has to care and no one else has to spend money to make sure you get a chance to speak.
This is so apparent that I don't know why it is not the first and last thing spoken when the "freedom of speech" meme is brought up - especially by the left wing radical socialist antifa/BLM scum.
And you especially do not have the right to stop others from speaking.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:24 pm to ShortyRob
Texas A&M changed the policy after Spencer came last year. You have to be invited by one of the 800+ student organizations. If you can't find one of that many groups to invite you, then you don't have any business to speak at Texas A&M. It's a policy that I personally agree with.
The policy was put in place because Spencer came without an invite and it attracted protesters from all over the state of Texas. People who also have no affiliation with the University. A&M does not want that on campus. A&M does not need that negative attention. A&M was smart to implement a new rule to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. If Spencer wants to speak in College Station, there are many public parks he can choose from.
Any liberal group or individual should be treated the same way. Invite or GTFO.
The policy was put in place because Spencer came without an invite and it attracted protesters from all over the state of Texas. People who also have no affiliation with the University. A&M does not want that on campus. A&M does not need that negative attention. A&M was smart to implement a new rule to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. If Spencer wants to speak in College Station, there are many public parks he can choose from.
Any liberal group or individual should be treated the same way. Invite or GTFO.
This post was edited on 10/6/17 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:26 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
In this case, they changed the rule in direct response to the speaker that was coming. I do not see this as the same as if a rule was already established.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:26 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Bump stocks should be illegal. ---- I'm not a fan of extended mags either.
Nor I -
but I would like for these to be handled with executive interpretation of the existing law banning automatic weapons - not by writing specific legislation for each new piece of equipment that is bound to emerge.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:27 pm to ChineseBandit58
Of course you don't have a right to stop others from speaking. But do you have to give them a stage and a microphone?
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:27 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Last night on Tucker Carlson there was a lawyer who was actually arguing that the First Amendment guarantees your right to block a major highway and keep people from traveling. Now that , in this case, guy should lose his law license IMMEDIATELY.
Well, it's not exactly like that. You can block roads as a part of a protest. You SILL and SHOULD be arrested, but everyone knows that, or should know that, going in. That's classic civil disobedience and it has a place. But the trade off is that those who break the law in civil disobedience also pay the price of breaking the law, voluntarily. The fact that they broke the law in that manner is not a forfeiture of their right to bodily integrity, however, and they should be treated respectfully.
So the lawyer got it wrong in that he should have said that it is within our rights to engage in civil disobedience, with the understanding that the people who break the laws will face the criminal or civil prosecution which they have volunteered to accept.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:27 pm to ChineseBandit58
That's exactly what they are trying to do I believe
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:29 pm to Machine
quote:
where does the second amendment guarantee you a bump stock and extended clip?
Shall not be infringed.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 3:30 pm to Dale51
No one is infringing on your right to own a firearm by banning certain modifiers. So that isn't a real argument.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't see anything about modifiers to your arms.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't see anything about modifiers to your arms.
This post was edited on 10/6/17 at 3:31 pm
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News