Actual First Amendment Contest or Racist Invitation for Violence

[Jimmy Higgins]

Regardless, saying they should bring guns should get the cops out there to watch, and they should be sent the bill.

Should Ferguson and Baltimore protesters also be sent the bill for the police presence or does this apply only for groups who you disagree with?

I don't recall an organized effort to try and insult white people and to come armed. Also in Ferguson, it was the Police presence that helped to spur on trouble using 60's anti-Civil Rights march protocol.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/us/mohammed-cartoon-contest/index.html


Is this shouting fire in a crowded theatre? They are going to hold it at a community center and are encouraging everyone to come armed.

The accurate statement, and I paraphrase, is to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. Explain to me how, exactly, your suggestion the conduct/or speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause?

This isn't as much about the speech, it spills into the 2nd Amendment with people organizing, being armed, directly in front of a religious community they are trying to offend.

 

[James Madison]

It's no worse than when the Westboro folks go and protest funerals to say that the dead guy is in Hell because of teh ghey.

They're small-minded, idiotic dipshits, but they have a right to express whatever opinion they want.

But it's the "let's all come armed looking for a violent confrontation" that I question.

The organizer's statement of, "People are also encouraged to utilize (their) second amendment right at this event just (in case) our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack," the event's Facebook page says" is different from "let's all come armed looking for a violent confrontation." The organizer's statement does not constitute as incitement and incitement is the only speech exception I can think of at the moment to support the notion the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause may not offer any refuge to the organizer's speech/conduct.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

 

[laughing dog]

Can you give a rational explanation as how the type of gun would affect whethery were charged with a hate crime?

Can you give a rational explanation as to why a news organization would omit it?

No would have a simpler and actual answer to the question. As to your derailing question, my guess would be that either that detail was omitted or that they did not think it was important. But, if you should ask them and then start a thread on it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But it's the "let's all come armed looking for a violent confrontation" that I question.

The organizer's statement of, "People are also encouraged to utilize (their) second amendment right at this event just (in case) our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack," the event's Facebook page says" is different from "let's all come armed looking for a violent confrontation." The organizer's statement does not constitute as incitement and incitement is the only speech exception I can think of at the moment to support the notion the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause may not offer any refuge to the organizer's speech/conduct.

It isn't incitement (it's headed in that direction), but it isn't exactly peaceful by any means. I'm aware these people live in a right-wing bubble and are wholly incapable of understanding how an armed protest in front of your Community Center could be a bit intimidating.

Imagine the the outrage of an armed Islamic protest outside a Baptist Church in Phoenix. Muslims blaspheming Jesus while open carrying guns.

There is outrage from the right-wing if Muslims want to build a Mosque! Don't hear shit from the right-wing about the first amendment when those protests start up against the building of a Mosque.

 

[James Madison]

The organizer's statement of, "People are also encouraged to utilize (their) second amendment right at this event just (in case) our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack," the event's Facebook page says" is different from "let's all come armed looking for a violent confrontation." The organizer's statement does not constitute as incitement and incitement is the only speech exception I can think of at the moment to support the notion the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause may not offer any refuge to the organizer's speech/conduct.

It isn't incitement (it's headed in that direction), but it isn't exactly peaceful by any means. I'm aware these people live in a right-wing bubble and are wholly incapable of understanding how an armed protest in front of your Community Center could be a bit intimidating.

Imagine the the outrage of an armed Islamic protest outside a Baptist Church in Phoenix. Muslims blaspheming Jesus while open carrying guns.

There is outrage from the right-wing if Muslims want to build a Mosque! Don't hear shit from the right-wing about the first amendment when those protests start up against the building of a Mosque.

Higgins, you do know Nice Squirrel made a suggestion the speech/conduct of the organizer may not be protected by the 1st Amendment? Nice Squirrel is examining where, exactly, the line is drawn or should be drawn between protected speech and unprotected speech, speech which cannot be criminalized and speech which can be criminalized. I am addressing those concepts raised by Nice Squirrel.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't incitement (it's headed in that direction), but it isn't exactly peaceful by any means. I'm aware these people live in a right-wing bubble and are wholly incapable of understanding how an armed protest in front of your Community Center could be a bit intimidating.

Imagine the the outrage of an armed Islamic protest outside a Baptist Church in Phoenix. Muslims blaspheming Jesus while open carrying guns.

There is outrage from the right-wing if Muslims want to build a Mosque! Don't hear shit from the right-wing about the first amendment when those protests start up against the building of a Mosque.

Higgins, you do know Nice Squirrel made a suggestion the speech/conduct of the organizer may not be protected by the 1st Amendment? Nice Squirrel is examining where, exactly, the line is drawn or should be drawn between protected speech and unprotected speech, speech which cannot be criminalized and speech which can be criminalized. I am addressing those concepts raised by Nice Squirrel.

And I'm addressing another. Should a police escort be required when someone suggests having an armed protest (read hate-fest) in front of a place of worship. Their actions haven't crossed into unprotected, but they have certainly crossed into "something the government just can't ignore". And if so, should they have to pay the bill?

 

[dismal]

I don't recall an organized effort to try and insult white people and to come armed.

Maybe an NWA concert?

But if not this is America, Jimmy! You can be the first.

- - - Updated - - -

Should a police escort be required when someone suggests having an armed protest (read hate-fest) in front of a place of worship. Their actions haven't crossed into unprotected, but they have certainly crossed into "something the government just can't ignore". And if so, should they have to pay the bill?

If my memory serves correct the police should shut down the freeway for them and serve them hot chocolate.

 

[James Madison]

Higgins, you do know Nice Squirrel made a suggestion the speech/conduct of the organizer may not be protected by the 1st Amendment? Nice Squirrel is examining where, exactly, the line is drawn or should be drawn between protected speech and unprotected speech, speech which cannot be criminalized and speech which can be criminalized. I am addressing those concepts raised by Nice Squirrel.

And I'm addressing another. Should a police escort be required when someone suggests having an armed protest (read hate-fest) in front of a place of worship. Their actions haven't crossed into unprotected, but they have certainly crossed into "something the government just can't ignore". And if so, should they have to pay the bill?

No, the organizer shouldn't have to pay the police for exercising his 1st Amendment free speech rights.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And I'm addressing another. Should a police escort be required when someone suggests having an armed protest (read hate-fest) in front of a place of worship. Their actions haven't crossed into unprotected, but they have certainly crossed into "something the government just can't ignore". And if so, should they have to pay the bill?

No, the organizer shouldn't have to pay the police for exercising his 1st Amendment free speech rights.

Really? Have you heard of permits? People pay for speech and organization all the time. He proposes an armed "free speech" event. That is creating a risk to public safety. They want to draw away without guns, so be it, but making it an armed event changes the logistics.

 

[James Madison]

No, the organizer shouldn't have to pay the police for exercising his 1st Amendment free speech rights.

Really? Have you heard of permits? People pay for speech and organization all the time. He proposes an armed "free speech" event. That is creating a risk to public safety. They want to draw away without guns, so be it, but making it an armed event changes the logistics.

First, there is a difference between obtaining a permit to conduct some organized event in a public park, on public streets, etcetera, and police making the decision they should be present at some speech event. The two aren't the same. If the police believe, based on the circumstances, they need to be present at this event, then they may make their presence seen and known. However, the law enforcement making the conscious decision to be present is their choice and they would merely be doing their jobs and being paid for doing their jobs. The organizer shouldn't have to pay.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And I'm addressing another. Should a police escort be required when someone suggests having an armed protest (read hate-fest) in front of a place of worship. Their actions haven't crossed into unprotected, but they have certainly crossed into "something the government just can't ignore". And if so, should they have to pay the bill?

No, the organizer shouldn't have to pay the police for exercising his 1st Amendment free speech rights.

They should use this concept during all the political conventions. Lock the protesters away in caged "free speech zones" a couple of blocks and then give people a bill if they go into them.

Freedom isn't free and the welfare queens need to start realizing this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Which isn't really related to drawing pictures.

Huh? The prevailing assumption, among both the left and the right, is that its the drawings that will incite the Muslims to react violently. Or am I missing something here?

You are missing that it ins't the muslims in this case that the OP is hinting at becoming violent.... I think.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The police will be there:

Phoenix police Chief Joe Yahner is personally involved in arranging public safety around the event, he told CNN affiliate KPHO.

"There's a lot of things in the works. The intelligence related to the crowd is changing all the time," he said.

Gov. Doug Ducey hopes common sense will prevail in the event, he said.

"Of course I'm a believer in free speech and the First Amendment. I'm also a believer in good judgment and common sense," he told the affiliate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Really? Have you heard of permits? People pay for speech and organization all the time. He proposes an armed "free speech" event. That is creating a risk to public safety. They want to draw away without guns, so be it, but making it an armed event changes the logistics.

First, there is a difference between obtaining a permit to conduct some organized event in a public park, on public streets, etcetera, and police making the decision they should be present at some speech event. The two aren't the same.

They can be depending on local rules and regulations.

If the police believe, based on the circumstances, they need to be present at this event, then they may make their presence seen and known. However, the law enforcement making the conscious decision to be present is their choice and they would merely be doing their jobs and being paid for doing their jobs. The organizer shouldn't have to pay.

They should have to pay if the local rules and regs require it. And there is certainly reason to suspect the police would need to be there to ensure public safety.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, the organizer shouldn't have to pay the police for exercising his 1st Amendment free speech rights.

They should use this concept during all the political conventions. Lock the protesters away in caged "free speech zones" a couple of blocks and then give people a bill if they go into them.

Freedom isn't free and the welfare queens need to start realizing this.

I'm pretty certain no armed protestors would be allowed within 100 miles of a Political Convention. I think it is funny, my company has to pay for a officer for traffic control (he's just doing his job), but if an officer has to oversee an armed hate protest, that is all about "free speech" and the officer is just doing what he was paid to do in the first place.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They should use this concept during all the political conventions. Lock the protesters away in caged "free speech zones" a couple of blocks and then give people a bill if they go into them.

Freedom isn't free and the welfare queens need to start realizing this.

I'm pretty certain no armed protestors would be allowed within 100 miles of a Political Convention. I think it is funny, my company has to pay for a officer for traffic control (he's just doing his job), but if an officer has to oversee an armed hate protest, that is all about "free speech" and the officer is just doing what he was paid to do in the first place.

Because protecting people from violence is what cops are paid to do and this is an event with an increased chance of violence, so it's their job to be there. Doing traffic control for your company is not what a cop is paid to do and he's not just doing his job - your company is contracting out with the police department to have him do a different job.

 

[dismal]

They should use this concept during all the political conventions. Lock the protesters away in caged "free speech zones" a couple of blocks and then give people a bill if they go into them.

Freedom isn't free and the welfare queens need to start realizing this.

I'm pretty certain no armed protestors would be allowed within 100 miles of a Political Convention. I think it is funny, my company has to pay for a officer for traffic control (he's just doing his job), but if an officer has to oversee an armed hate protest, that is all about "free speech" and the officer is just doing what he was paid to do in the first place.

Sorry Higgins, you're late to the game. This forum has already established that policemen should help shut down freeways and serve hot chocolate when first amendment rights are involved.

 

[James Madison]

No, the organizer shouldn't have to pay the police for exercising his 1st Amendment free speech rights.

They should use this concept during all the political conventions. Lock the protesters away in caged "free speech zones" a couple of blocks and then give people a bill if they go into them.

Freedom isn't free and the welfare queens need to start realizing this.

Well, to be sure, the city can lawfully require a permit for an organized speech event on public streets/public park, public parks, and so forth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm pretty certain no armed protestors would be allowed within 100 miles of a Political Convention. I think it is funny, my company has to pay for a officer for traffic control (he's just doing his job), but if an officer has to oversee an armed hate protest, that is all about "free speech" and the officer is just doing what he was paid to do in the first place.

Because protecting people from violence is what cops are paid to do and this is an event with an increased chance of violence, so it's their job to be there.

They aren't there to protect the protestors, they are there because they are worried the protestors will cause a problem.

Doing traffic control for your company is not what a cop is paid to do and he's not just doing his job - your company is contracting out with the police department to have him do a different job.

In both cases, my crew and the protestors are the risk.

 

[James Madison]

First, there is a difference between obtaining a permit to conduct some organized event in a public park, on public streets, etcetera, and police making the decision they should be present at some speech event. The two aren't the same.

They can be depending on local rules and regulations.

If the police believe, based on the circumstances, they need to be present at this event, then they may make their presence seen and known. However, the law enforcement making the conscious decision to be present is their choice and they would merely be doing their jobs and being paid for doing their jobs. The organizer shouldn't have to pay.

They should have to pay if the local rules and regs require it. And there is certainly reason to suspect the police would need to be there to ensure public safety.

I haven't the slightest idea as to what you mean by "local rules and regs require it."