State's 'hate crimes' code used against 'pure speech'

[master_catholic]

Part 1

No I didnt. I remained impartial and condemned all parties for what they did.

There’s no further point to arguing about this. We can’t even agree on what we’ve said on this thread. So I’m going to drop this point.

So the first guy had his civil-rights violated because he chose to harrass a person to the point that police had to interviene?

Please.

it’s like you’re seeing things, since when should one particular viewpoint be classified as “harrassment,” which is what’s happening?

The second lot chose to ignore the law and think themselves above everyone else and the law, even after being allowed to practice free speech, were not doing anything wrong.

They didn’t think themselves above the law, they rightfully expressed what should be protected by law! They rightfully ignore the unjust commands of a police officer who gives unconstitutional commands, and they are rightfully disobedient. They are noble in what they do, for they show that law does not equal moral or ethical. They have the first amendment, law enforcement denied them that, so they rightfully deny in turn their observance.

The “free speach zones” are unconstitutional, and it therefore should not have to be observed.

Do I dare advacate civil disobedience? Yes! :yup: When the law is unjust/unethical. It can send a very powerful message to the rest of America that still sleeps in the midst of danger. Pro-lifers actually do this too, for example.

The third group, they wont even say what they were exactly “sharing”. Aside from raising questions about the “World Net Daily” integritity, it doesnt help their cause at all. You dont get arrested for simply “sharing your faith”, so what part of their faith were they sharing and which part of the “gospel” were they spreading?

Uh, Elric…They didn’t have to say much for people to know EXACTLY what they were sharing, everyone else should be able to get that why not you? What they did was perhaps imprudent, but not unethical or illegal.

 

[master_catholic]

Part 2

The city chose to handle the situation the way that they did. From what I can tell, it was mainly to protect the anti-gay protesters and still allow them to have free speech. Why should they risk injury to police and others when there was another way to allow both parties what they wanted.

The city chose to act in an unconstitutional matter, and therefore the case should be revisited and the ordiences rebuked. And if you read the artice closely it mentions:

“Despite the disclaimer, organizations from both sides of the political debate see the restriction as a clear limitation on freedom of speech and contend the permit is not the only problem; the ordinance allowing for its enforcement is the root issue.” [my emphasis added]

I don’t think this ordinance is what EITHER side “wanted,” Elric.

What was really needed was for those people not to act like they were above the law.

They didn’t, it’s the law enfourcement that acts like they are above the law, as well as the liberals and gay-activists who engage in such unconstitutional behavior.

No it wasnt legal, they were already told not to do it before they even arrived there. They were there to cause a disturbance plain and simple, what really disturbs me is that the minister chose to lie about the groups intentions and come up with that “praying for them” line.

The cops had no right to tell them that. Just because they are policemen doesn’t make them the law. They are supposed to enforce the law, not make it up, or serve the PC agenda. They meant no disturbance, they wern’t going to kick/puch people, knock things over, scream, or the like. They were just going to remain prostrate in from of the stage, with little or no movement. It was a public park, they had the right to be there as well as anyone else. The minister did not lie, you just think that.

I can understand why the police officer said what he did (that is if he actually said those words). The park was holding a homosexual festival, I doubt very much if any of the people in the park would be really interested in what the group had to say. Besides that I think that the homosexuals attending already have a fair idea what “christianity” thinks of them.

Here there is really no argument, we see eye to eye here

I would question that due to the fact that they were all friends until apparently the boy “came out”. Although I am more inclined to think its more “youthful ignorance”.

Again, no point here to mention , the girls had no real constructive reason to do what they did.

No, these people did the wrong thing.

They didn’t, the cops & the city did the wrong thing, by undermining their first-amendment rights.

I was refering to the stories cited in this thread, that way its easier for people to follow up.

Ok, thank you, now I’m sure what we’re refering too

The “positive light” part would be refering to how the sites try to make the perpertraitors look like the victims. The poor ex-gay man was only “sharing his testimony”, the old ladies (lists grand children) were only “sharing their faith” and “spreading the gospel”.

Of course, perhaps because it is…True? That they are victims? The perpetrators are the cops and the city that stepped on their constitutional rights.

Im not talking about the difference between liberal/consertive media, I dont buy into that. I was refering to the stories cited and how they were reported.

Ok, I understand here. You may have meant only to talk about the stories/reports and not get into the broader discussion of liberal/conservative media, but it is at least relevent to this issue.

Great thread, BTW

I’d like to ask the forum admin if my conduct is starting to go
and if I need to pull myself up a bit

 

[goofyjim]

1. I was talking about policemen/judges/etc. who with a liberal mindset illicitely used their power to silence free speech. That is wrong. I wasn’t refering to protesters when I was talking about “oppressive force.”
2. You have the right to ignore, to not listen. You have the right to leave. You do have the right to tell someone to leave if they are on PRIVATE property, but not if it’s PUBLIC.

If they are bothering you on PUBLIC property, you can just leave, or not listen, but you can’t just censor their message and threaten to call the pollice. They still have first amendment rights, or should.

I hope christians will have the commen-sense approach and leave people alone when they are not in the mood to talk, but I can sympathise with you if the christian is outright rude and unrelenting.

Then on the same note on public property the gay person has freedom of speech as well.

 

[Elric]

Part 1

There’s no further point to arguing about this. We can’t even agree on what we’ve said on this thread. So I’m going to drop this point.

Fair enough.

it’s like you’re seeing things, since when should one particular viewpoint be classified as “harrassment,” which is what’s happening?

How else would you put it?

Its pretty obvious that the other person involved didnt apperciate the sharing of testimony that was going on, why else was he arrested?

They didn’t think themselves above the law, they rightfully expressed what should be protected by law! They rightfully ignore the unjust commands of a police officer who gives unconstitutional commands, and they are rightfully disobedient. They are noble in what they do, for they show that law does not equal moral or ethical. They have the first amendment, law enforcement denied them that, so they rightfully deny in turn their observance.

They were NOT denied their first amendment at all, they were even encouraged to exercise it (before and after the parade on the parade ground and in designated areas).

They were given the opportunity to express themselves, but these individuals decided that this wasnt good enough (while apparently others chose to stay where they were). They were out to cause trouble and the police responded in kind.

The “free speach zones” are unconstitutional, and it therefore should not have to be observed.

I dont see how, especally when they are allowed to express themselves.

Do I dare advacate civil disobedience? Yes! :yup: When the law is unjust/unethical. It can send a very powerful message to the rest of America that still sleeps in the midst of danger. Pro-lifers actually do this too, for example.

I condone civil disobedience when it is justified and there are cases when it is justified, this isnt one of them.

Uh, Elric…They didn’t have to say much for people to know EXACTLY what they were sharing, everyone else should be able to get that why not you? What they did was perhaps imprudent, but not unethical or illegal.

I guess that I must be stupid then, could you enlighten me as to exactly what they were sharing and spreading?

Usually reports like this have quotes of what was being shared and spread, especally if it was as harmless as is being suggested.

 

[Elric]

Part 2

The city chose to act in an unconstitutional matter, and therefore the case should be revisited and the ordiences rebuked. And if you read the artice closely it mentions:

“Despite the disclaimer, organizations from both sides of the political debate see the restriction as a clear limitation on freedom of speech and contend the permit is not the only problem; the ordinance allowing for its enforcement is the root issue.” [my emphasis added]

I don’t think this ordinance is what EITHER side “wanted,” Elric.

I think the homosexuals objected because they didnt want the protestors there at all to be honest. I think that the city was trying to accomidate both parties.

They didn’t, it’s the law enfourcement that acts like they are above the law, as well as the liberals and gay-activists who engage in such unconstitutional behavior.

They did, otherwise they would have stayed where they were.

The cops had no right to tell them that. Just because they are policemen doesn’t make them the law. They are supposed to enforce the law, not make it up, or serve the PC agenda. They meant no disturbance, they wern’t going to kick/puch people, knock things over, scream, or the like. They were just going to remain prostrate in from of the stage, with little or no movement. It was a public park, they had the right to be there as well as anyone else. The minister did not lie, you just think that.

The police had no right to tell them not to go to a gay festival with the object of disrupting it and causing a public disturbence as well as protecting other peoples civil rights?

The protestors could have done what they did out the front of the park where they would not have caused a disturbence, rather than where they did go.If they wanted to pray for the people at the festival, they could have done that at home, at church or anywhere else.

Im sorry, but they did lie about their intentions.

Here there is really no argument, we see eye to eye here

I thought it was pretty obvious myself, there is no other reason to say something like that.

Again, no point here to mention , the girls had no real constructive reason to do what they did.

Their actions do concern me and I hope that they learn something from this.

They didn’t, the cops & the city did the wrong thing, by undermining their first-amendment rights.

Nobodies first amendments rights were undermines.

Ok, thank you, now I’m sure what we’re refering too {/QUOTE]

No worries, it makes things easier.

Of course, perhaps because it is…True? That they are

victims? The perpetrators are the cops and the city that stepped on their constitutional rights.

I really hope that you never need to police for anything

Other than that I will just be repeating myself.

Ok, I understand here. You may have meant only to talk about the stories/reports and not get into the broader discussion of liberal/conservative media, but it is at least relevent to this issue.

Kind of, but also because both sides are as bad as the other. Both will push their own agenda and neither will give an unbiased report of what happens.

From my experience news and current affairs mediums never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Great thread, BTW

It is good, it is nice that it is generally civil.

 

[master_catholic]

Then on the same note on public property the gay person has freedom of speech as well.

Absolutely