Actual First Amendment Contest or Racist Invitation for Violence

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

I fail to see how that's a different response to what I said.

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.

Your analogy is too strained for me to bother responding to.

 

[James Madison]

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.

There ya go, make a false equivocation between your company having to pay an officer for traffic control for the benefit of your company and on behalf of your company and police presence at an event which may get out of control.

 

[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.

There ya go, make a false equivocation between your company having to pay an officer for traffic control for the benefit of your company and on behalf of your company and police presence at an event which may get out of control.

Both issues are dealing with risk. Both regard public safety. Both involve a party that is changing the status quo at a location.

The only potential difference are regulations which may or may not require paying for the police to be involved.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

I fail to see how that's a different response to what I said.

It is different because the people that would be protected are the public in general, not the people in the protest.

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.

Your analogy is too strained for me to bother responding to.

I apologize for even bothering to burden you with it then.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I am having a hard time understanding here is how this is a free speech issue. No one is saying the shouldn't be allowed be idiots. Heck wouldn't need police there to begin with.

The problem is the guns.

 

[James Madison]

There ya go, make a false equivocation between your company having to pay an officer for traffic control for the benefit of your company and on behalf of your company and police presence at an event which may get out of control.

Both issues are dealing with risk. Both regard public safety. Both involve a party that is changing the status quo at a location.

The only potential difference are regulations which may or may not require paying for the police to be involved.

Both situations may have a common denominator, such a risk, but this does not render the two situations parallel. In one instance, as Tom Sawyer stated, police conduct in response to the risk is a part of their job. The risk in the other situation, traffic control of your company and regulating the traffic control of your company, isn't a part of their job, hence your company pays for the service of the officer.

 

[laughing dog]

What I am having a hard time understanding here is how this is a free speech issue. No one is saying the shouldn't be allowed be idiots. Heck wouldn't need police there to begin with.

The problem is the guns.

Guns speak volumes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Both issues are dealing with risk. Both regard public safety. Both involve a party that is changing the status quo at a location.

The only potential difference are regulations which may or may not require paying for the police to be involved.

Both situations may have a common denominator, such a risk, but this does not render the two situations parallel. In one instance, as Tom Sawyer stated, police conduct in response to the risk is a part of their job. The risk in the other situation, traffic control of your company and regulating the traffic control of your company, isn't a part of their job, hence your company pays for the service of the officer.

That is all true, but is there no accounting for the whole planned armed mob aspect of it?

 

[Frikki]

What kind of a shitty third world country has a protest where everybody brings their guns? Can you imagine the scene anywhere outside of Sub Sahara Africa where riffles are a thing you bring to a political event?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What kind of a shitty third world country has a protest where everybody brings their guns? Can you imagine the scene anywhere outside of Sub Sahara Africa where riffles are a thing you bring to a political event?

As I mentioned above, imagine an armed Islamic protest outside a Christian Church.

 

[Ford]

What kind of a shitty third world country has a protest where everybody brings their guns? Can you imagine the scene anywhere outside of Sub Sahara Africa where riffles are a thing you bring to a political event?

It isn't really a political event. Just a gathering of assholes. If it is anything like the "protests" that the wing nuts around here organize, there will be maybe 10 actual participants with at least 12 firearms and perhaps as many as 8 brains between them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's an idiot.

Anyone sensible knows you don't stick your dick in crazy! <G, D & R>

 

[untermensche]

This is close to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The US has pissed off so many Muslims with it's non-stop killing of Muslims for over a decade.

And of course it has nothing to do with any rights or freedoms.

It is about ignorance and hatred and trying to piss people off.

 

[bilby]

What I am having a hard time understanding here is how this is a free speech issue. No one is saying the shouldn't be allowed be idiots. Heck wouldn't need police there to begin with.

The problem is the guns.

So this protest is in no way different from any other problem in the USA then?

 

[Ford]

On my way home from work I was listening to some of the live coverage of this massive rally for free speech on our local news radio station. Turns out I have to drastically revise my earlier estimate. I said there would be maybe 10 people.


What I should have said was "tens of people." Yes, at last count, the drawing contest/rally in the park across from the mosque drew perhaps as many as 30 stalwart defenders of liberty.


That massive number, however, is apparently dwarfed by the huge crowd at the mosque itself. Nearly 50 people - including Christian groups showing up to counter the protest, spectators, and other folks - have arrived. It could very well be north of 100 people if you count the cops, private security, and the news helicopter pilot.


We're all of course hoping for a peaceful outcome, and if that happens, this could be the largest peaceful gathering of people in Phoenix since the lunch rush at the Chipotle on 7th Avenue.

 

[Axulus]

Not incitation for violence. However, this kind of bullshit helps push Muslim youth toward radicalism. It makes it more likely they feel alienated from their own society, like they don't belong, and therefore will personally identify much more strongly as a Muslim and not as an American. That makes them much more fertile for a charismatic radical recruiter.

These kind of people are enemies of what the US stands for and they are helping the terrorists.

 

[Axulus]

On my way home from work I was listening to some of the live coverage of this massive rally for free speech on our local news radio station. Turns out I have to drastically revise my earlier estimate. I said there would be maybe 10 people.


What I should have said was "tens of people." Yes, at last count, the drawing contest/rally in the park across from the mosque drew perhaps as many as 30 stalwart defenders of liberty.


That massive number, however, is apparently dwarfed by the huge crowd at the mosque itself. Nearly 50 people - including Christian groups showing up to counter the protest, spectators, and other folks - have arrived. It could very well be north of 100 people if you count the cops, private security, and the news helicopter pilot.


We're all of course hoping for a peaceful outcome, and if that happens, this could be the largest peaceful gathering of people in Phoenix since the lunch rush at the Chipotle on 7th Avenue.

Very glad to hear that there are other outside groups standing with them to counter the "protest".

 

[Duke Leto]

Actual First Amendment Contest or Racist Invitation for Violence

Why can't it be both?

Something can be both protected speech and insanely idiotic.

The musing I wrote up on FB after the Texas caricature debacle (but before the biker bar brawl) went like this:

I tend to view the Free Speech issues with respect to the Texan Muhammed caricature contests the same way as I would view the Free Speech issues with someone who, hypothetically speaking, charges into a Hell's Angels bar with a megaphone screaming "All BIkers are Faggots!".

No one is going to deny their fundamental right to take that action in principle, and there's no reason for government to take steps to prevent it, but you should certainly hold the instigators partly responsible for any damage to property or harm to bystanders that the inevitable violent reaction causes.

 

[Axulus]

Actual First Amendment Contest or Racist Invitation for Violence

Why can't it be both?

Something can be both protected speech and insanely idiotic.

The musing I wrote up on FB after the Texas caricature debacle (but before the biker bar brawl) went like this:

I tend to view the Free Speech issues with respect to the Texan Muhammed caricature contests the same way as I would view the Free Speech issues with someone who, hypothetically speaking, charges into a Hell's Angels bar with a megaphone screaming "All BIkers are Faggots!".

No one is going to deny their fundamental right to take that action in principle, and there's no reason for government to take steps to prevent it, but you should certainly hold the instigators partly responsible for any damage to property or harm to bystanders that the inevitable violent reaction causes.

Why in the world do you view those two scenarios as essentially equivalent? In one scenario, you have people doing drawings in their own private space, not directly confronting people and forcing or subjecting any person who would find such drawings offensive to view them. In the other, you enter into someone else's gathering space and get physically close enough to be within ear shot of them and make sure they hear your offensive message whether they want to hear it or not.

Please tell me you understand the relevance of these significant and salient differences.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is close to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The US has pissed off so many Muslims with it's non-stop killing of Muslims for over a decade.

And of course it has nothing to do with any rights or freedoms.

It is about ignorance and hatred and trying to piss people off.

And I'm close to Everest because I'm on the same planet it is.