Arrest made at Coulter speech

[Adonis33]

wabrams:

All differing viewpoints aside, what were 10 year olds doing there?

What 10 year olds were doing there is not the point.

 

[wabrams]

Adonis33:

When somebody rushes the stage to throw something at a speaker - whether it is Ann Coulter, or Bill Moyers - that is a security threat.

Your idea of “Free Speech” is skewed. Freedom of speech means (I’ve said this before) the Government cannot arrrest or pusecute you for your political views. However ALL speech must conform to rules of decorum and decency.

I’m talking about the Free Speech Zones during the presidential campaign. So what you are telling me is it is perfectly legal to put peacefull protesters well out of sight of the standing President is they hold a different viewpoint?

Adonis33:

I teach at a public High School, and students are constantly attempting to use “free speech” in order to get away with saying - or doing some pretty outlandish things.

No one is talking about high schools.

Adonis33:

What theat pig Raj said was both vulgar and onscene, not to mention the crude gester he did on the way back to the seat.

Hey, I don’t agree with what he did. I haven’t even once said I did.

Adonis33:

Add to it the children that were present to see the ordeal.

Sorry, but children have no place being on a college campus listening to a political speaker.

 

[wabrams]

Adonis33:

What 10 year olds were doing there is not the point.

It was in the affidavid, so there is a poitn. Why were 10 year olds at a there?

 

[shockerfan]

wabrams:

I’m talking about the Free Speech Zones during the presidential campaign. So what you are telling me is it is perfectly legal to put peacefull protesters well out of sight of the standing President is they hold a different viewpoint?

Because liberals have a real tough time playing nicely in the sandbox. Perhaps you should read my post number 39.

 

[wabrams]

shockerfan:

I found these two just doing a quick google:

nydailynews.com/front/story/211413p-182089c.html

First two words: Fringe elements. Other worlds, outside the norm.

shockerfan:

command-post.org/oped/2_archives/014835.html

Ranting commentary? Thats all that link is.

I seem to recall that all through out the DNC, very few Conservatives that tried to crash it were treated unfailry, I remember very well during the RNC that anybody booing or yelling thaty were trying to crash it were tackeld by security, shoved by Conservatives, etc. I remember Laura Ingraham’s son, on camera shoving a dissenter. Before the dissenter could even register what happened, security tackeld him, then Ingraham’s son started kicking him while he was on the ground. Did they arrest Ingraham’s son? No, but they charged the dissenter wirh aggrevated assault. I’m republican and usually vote a straight Republican ticket, but I saw a night and day difference this past election year with the way dissenters were treated at the DNC v. the RNC and it really ticked me off how my fellow Republicans acted.

 

[wabrams]

shockerfan:

Because liberals have a real tough time playing nicely in the sandbox. Perhaps you should read my post number 39.

Read it and the links hold no water to back up your claims.

 

[shockerfan]

wabrams:

Read it and the links hold no water to back up your claims.

Tell that to the cop that was attacked.

 

[shockerfan]

wabrams:

First two words: Fringe elements. Other worlds, outside the norm.

Another definition of “Fringe elements” is “Security Risk”

 

[Adonis33]

wabrams:

I’m talking about the Free Speech Zones during the presidential campaign. So what you are telling me is it is perfectly legal to put peacefull protesters well out of sight of the standing President is they hold a different viewpoint?

No one is talking about high schools.

Hey, I don’t agree with what he did. I haven’t even once said I did.

Sorry, but children have no place being on a college campus listening to a political speaker.

Yes, it is legal to place people in “Free Speech Zones” - however, it is not legal to charge the stage and throw things at speakers.

I was using High Schools to illustrate my point concerning speech

As far as the 10 year olds go - although that may be a matter of opinion, I think I agree with you on this point.

 

[wabrams]

shockerfan:

Tell that to the cop that was attacked.

Wow, a couple of looney’s attack a cop. Guess you better arrest everyone coming out of the bars because there might be less than one percent of those drunk people coming out who might take a swing at a cop.

 

[wabrams]

shockerfan:

Another definition of “Fringe elements” is “Security Risk”

What a spin; sure you don’t write for Bill O’Reilly? If a fringe groups of Conservatives did the same thing, would you advocate Free Speech Zones for them?

 

[wabrams]

Adonis33:

Yes, it is legal to place people in “Free Speech Zones”.

The courts have been overturning the charges against the people arrested outside of the free speach zones.

 

[shockerfan]

wabrams:

What a spin; sure you don’t write for Bill O’Reilly?

Cute. But the fact remains, that these “fringe elements” continue to follow the president around. So going back to the main point of this exchange, “free speech zones” are a good idea, since some people (uncanny how they’re almost always on the left") can’t express themselves without violence, or intruding on someone else’s rights to free speech (by throwing pies, salad dressing, etc).

 

[shockerfan]

wabrams:

Wow, a couple of looney’s attack a cop. Guess you better arrest everyone coming out of the bars because there might be less than one percent of those drunk people coming out who might take a swing at a cop.

We’re not talking about bars and drunk people, we are talking about the presidential security and free speech zones.

Nice try.

 

[Adonis33]

wabrams:

The courts have been overturning the charges against the people arrested outside of the free speach zones.

TO my knowlege - the courts have yet to rule on the constitutionality of Free Speech Zones, as of this typing - it is legal. Don’t forget - the DNC also employed the Free Speech Zones. If you accuse the Repubicans - you necsarrily accuse the Democrats.

I think the security of our government officials - both Rep and Dem trumps any notion of free speech.

However - throwing things at people you disagree with is NEVER justified, and always illegal.

 

[wabrams]

shockerfan:

Cute. But the fact remains, that these “fringe elements” continue to follow the president around. So going back to the main point of this exchange, “free speech zones” are a good idea, since some people (uncanny how they’re almost always on the left") can’t express themselves without violence, or intruding on someone else’s rights to free speech (by throwing pies, salad dressing, etc).

So what a tiny percentage do is enough to warrant punishing an entire political group? You have yet to answer my question: if a fringe group of Conservatives were doing the same thing, would you advocate isolating all conservatives at political events?

 

[wabrams]

shockerfan:

We’re not talking about bars and drunk people, we are talking about the presidential security and free speech zones.

Nice try.

It’s the same thing. Besides, people on both sides of the political spectrum know it’s next to impossible to get close enough to the president and throw pies at him; at least in the last 20 years. Last time I checked, they don’t make concealable pies.

 

[shockerfan]

wabrams:

So what a tiny percentage do is enough to warrant punishing an entire political group? You have yet to answer my question: if a fringe group of Conservatives were doing the same thing, would you advocate isolating all conservatives at political events?

Tough question, since it seems all of the examples of violence seem to involve liberal fringe groups…

But yes, I would. All presidents need to be protected. Now having said that, I’m not advocating shutting down protests…the secret service allowed a large group of anti-Bush protesters on the parade route for the inauguration.

 

[wabrams]

Adonis33:

TO my knowlege - the courts have yet to rule on the constitutionality of Free Speech Zones, as of this typing - it is legal.

You are absolutely right, because the courts refused to touch it during an election year. But most of those who were arrested for not using the Free Speech Zones had there charges droppped in court by the judge on grounds the charges were unconstitutional.

Adonis33:

Don’t forget - the DNC also employed the Free Speech Zones. If you accuse the Repubicans - you necsarrily accuse the Democrats.

The government mandated that the DNC HAD to have the zones.

Adonis33:

I think the security of our government officials - both Rep and Dem trumps any notion of free speech.

If you give up freedom for a little security, you deserve neither. It’s a fine line when secuirty trumps free speech, and this administration is pushing it to the line to see what it can get away with more so than any other one in the last 150 years.

Adonis33:

However - throwing things at people you disagree with is NEVER justified, and always illegal.

99% of the time I can agree with you on that.

 

[shockerfan]

wabrams:

It’s the same thing. Besides, people on both sides of the political spectrum know it’s next to impossible to get close enough to the president and throw pies at him; at least in the last 20 years. Last time I checked, they don’t make concealable pies.

I guess we agree to disagree…and its not pies I worry about. Ever see film footage of the loonies that protest during World Bank meetings…they’re throwing rocks and molatov cocktails.