Black Lives Matter's newest enemy? The ACLU!

[dismal]

If that were the case, their bizarre nighttime rally would have been the end of it. Try to set someone on fire? Try to break into a synagogue? Your rally the following day is now canceled.

The BLM position here suffers from being internally inconsistent. You can't easily reconcile "help, help I'm being systematically oppressed by the system" with "to hell with free speech for everyone I want the system to decide who can speak".

I see no inconsistency between "arrest people who are breaking the law" and "don't kill people who are not breaking the law", which is their actual position.

I didn't realize the ACLU was so prone to setting people on fire and smashing synagogues. Perhaps people do need to silence them after all. Let's put it to the oppressive majority for a vote.

At this point, it's perfectly clear that you're simply babbling with no concern for what I'm actually saying.

Bye!

Sorry, I responded as if you has made that post in a thread about BLM shutting down a speaker from the ACLU.

 

[dismal]

A big mystery is finally solved. If this is the best Democrats in the Cheese State have to offer, than there is no wonder how Scott Walker keeps getting elected.
This policy is not "sacrificing free speech", it is protecting it. Shutting down others' speech is not protected speech.

True, but this could help the considerably with the drunken-idiots-who-run-on-the-field-during-sporting-events vote, which in Wisconsin may be significant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If that were the case, their bizarre nighttime rally would have been the end of it. Try to set someone on fire? Try to break into a synagogue? Your rally the following day is now canceled.

The BLM position here suffers from being internally inconsistent. You can't easily reconcile "help, help I'm being systematically oppressed by the system" with "to hell with free speech for everyone I want the system to decide who can speak".

I see no inconsistency between "arrest people who are breaking the law" and "don't kill people who are not breaking the law", which is their actual position.

I didn't realize the ACLU was so prone to setting people on fire and smashing synagogues. Perhaps people do need to silence them after all. Let's put it to the oppressive majority for a vote.

At this point, it's perfectly clear that you're simply babbling with no concern for what I'm actually saying.

Bye!

He's talking about the thread topic: BLM doesn't like the fact that the ACLU defends people whose speech BLM doesn't like.

 

[laughing dog]

If that were the case, their bizarre nighttime rally would have been the end of it. Try to set someone on fire? Try to break into a synagogue? Your rally the following day is now canceled.

The BLM position here suffers from being internally inconsistent. You can't easily reconcile "help, help I'm being systematically oppressed by the system" with "to hell with free speech for everyone I want the system to decide who can speak".

I see no inconsistency between "arrest people who are breaking the law" and "don't kill people who are not breaking the law", which is their actual position.

I didn't realize the ACLU was so prone to setting people on fire and smashing synagogues. Perhaps people do need to silence them after all. Let's put it to the oppressive majority for a vote.

At this point, it's perfectly clear that you're simply babbling with no concern for what I'm actually saying.

Bye!

He's talking about the thread topic: BLM doesn't like the fact that the ACLU defends people whose speech BLM doesn't like.

The incident in question (if you bothered to read the OP) refers to students affiliated with BLM. BLM is not a monolithic group with an official position. It is incorrect to generalize about the BLM from one incident. Moreover, the post in question did not respond to the actual content of Mumbles' post - which makes it literally babble.

 

[KeepTalking]

Also in this case, they "silenced" her with speech. Therefor, if anyone is advocating that they should not have been able to do so, they are also advocating the curtailment of free speech.

Quite frankly, this is asinine. Freedom of speech does not give you the freedom to harass and silence others.

It does not give one the freedom to harass, no, but I am not sure that what happened here was harassment. If the only way you are silencing someone is by speaking more loudly than they are, I am relatively sure that such freedom is provided by the first amendment. This seems to be what happened in this situation.

It does not give you the freedom to disrupt a group of people talking.

If the only way you are disrupting them is with your own speech, it most certainly does.

A Christian cannot go into a Mosque, and shout down Muslims who are congregating, and get to claim that being prevented from doing so, is a curtailment of their religious freedom.

Perhaps not in a Mosque, as that is a private setting, and the owners of the Mosque are within their right to have those who are not welcome removed from their private land. If this happened on the street, or another public venue, however, a Christian would certainly be within their right to shout down Muslims who are congregating. The opposite, Muslims shouting down Christians who are congregating, would also be within their rights.

Indeed, this line of argumentation is *exactly the same* as the typical Fundie-Christian line that their "religious liberty" is being curtailed.

No, it isn't. But feel free to attempt to make an actual argument showing how they are the same.

 

[KeepTalking]

Also in this case, they "silenced" her with speech. Therefor, if anyone is advocating that they should not have been able to do so, they are also advocating the curtailment of free speech.

You're not actually that stupid are you?

We shall see. Perhaps your less hostile responses will enlighten me as to just how stupid you think I am, or whether they seem just as stupid to me.

Your free speech rights entitle you to say the Rolling Stones are old guys that suck.

Yes, they do. We agree here, so I doubt neither one of us is quite as stupid as the other seems to believe.

Your free speech rights do not entitle you to get on the stage and shriek at Mick Jagger in front of 50,000 paying customers.

Well, that's a pretty stupid thing to interject. Were there 50,000 paying customers at the event in question? Were there any paying customers at the event in question? If this was a private event that was disrupted, then I would agree the BLM crowd should have been ejected, but my initial reading of the story did not lead me to believe that it was a private event.

 

[dismal]

Well, that's a pretty stupid thing to interject. Were there 50,000 paying customers at the event in question? Were there any paying customers at the event in question? If this was a private event that was disrupted, then I would agree the BLM crowd should have been ejected, but my initial reading of the story did not lead me to believe that it was a private event.

How many people have to be in the crowd before you are no longer allowed to take the stage and shriek at someone who is scheduled to perform?

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, that's a pretty stupid thing to interject. Were there 50,000 paying customers at the event in question? Were there any paying customers at the event in question? If this was a private event that was disrupted, then I would agree the BLM crowd should have been ejected, but my initial reading of the story did not lead me to believe that it was a private event.

How many people have to be in the crowd before you are no longer allowed to take the stage and shriek at someone who is scheduled to perform?

It isn't about how many people are in the crowd, it is about where the crowd is gathered, and whether that gathering is private or public.

 

[sharon45]

How many people have to be in the crowd before you are no longer allowed to take the stage and shriek at someone who is scheduled to perform?

It isn't about how many people are in the crowd, it is about where the crowd is gathered, and whether that gathering is private or public.

Being scheduled to perform should tell you something. This was obviously organized.

 

[dismal]

How many people have to be in the crowd before you are no longer allowed to take the stage and shriek at someone who is scheduled to perform?

It isn't about how many people are in the crowd, it is about where the crowd is gathered, and whether that gathering is private or public.

So then, here's what the school had to say about this case:

The event, sponsored by William & Mary's student-run programming organization Alma Mater Productions (AMP), was entitled “Students and the First Amendment.” The anticipated conversation never occurred when protestors refused to allow the invited speaker Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, to be heard. The protesters then drowned out students who gathered around Ms. Gastañaga seeking to ask her questions, hear her responses and voice their own concerns.

http://www.wm.edu/news/announcements/2017/statement-from-william--mary-president-taylor-reveley.php

So, it was a privately organized event at which presumably the organizers would decide who gets to speak - like perhaps their invited speaker?

 

[KeepTalking]

It isn't about how many people are in the crowd, it is about where the crowd is gathered, and whether that gathering is private or public.

Being scheduled to perform should tell you something. This was obviously organized.

It isn't about how many people are in the crowd, it is about where the crowd is gathered, and whether that gathering is private or public.

So then, here's what the school had to say about this case:

The event, sponsored by William & Mary's student-run programming organization Alma Mater Productions (AMP), was entitled “Students and the First Amendment.” The anticipated conversation never occurred when protestors refused to allow the invited speaker Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, to be heard. The protesters then drowned out students who gathered around Ms. Gastañaga seeking to ask her questions, hear her responses and voice their own concerns.

http://www.wm.edu/news/announcements/2017/statement-from-william--mary-president-taylor-reveley.php

So, it was a privately organized event at which presumably the organizers would decide who gets to speak - like perhaps their invited speaker?

Whether it was organized, and who organized or sponsored the event has no bearing on whether it was a public or private event. If it was a ticketed event in a private venue, then the owners and organizers can remove anyone they like for any reason, and this would not be a free speech issue. If it was open to the public, without a ticket or previous reservation, and in a public venue, then free speech must be respected, even free speech which counters and is louder than that of the organizers and their preferred scheduled speakers.

 

[Derec]

Whether it was organized, and who organized or sponsored the event has no bearing on whether it was a public or private event. If it was a ticketed event in a private venue, then the owners and organizers can remove anyone they like for any reason, and this would not be a free speech issue. If it was open to the public, without a ticket or previous reservation, and in a public venue, then free speech must be respected, even free speech which counters and is louder than that of the organizers and their preferred scheduled speakers.

So your position is that anybody should be able to shout down a speaker at any public event?

Should Charlottesville Nazis be, for example, able to roll down with full Disaster Area sound system and drown out Democratic candidates' rallies in Virginia in 2018?

Or does the right to disrupt, shout down etc. only apply to left-wing groups?

 

[dismal]

Being scheduled to perform should tell you something. This was obviously organized.

It isn't about how many people are in the crowd, it is about where the crowd is gathered, and whether that gathering is private or public.

So then, here's what the school had to say about this case:

The event, sponsored by William & Mary's student-run programming organization Alma Mater Productions (AMP), was entitled “Students and the First Amendment.” The anticipated conversation never occurred when protestors refused to allow the invited speaker Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, to be heard. The protesters then drowned out students who gathered around Ms. Gastañaga seeking to ask her questions, hear her responses and voice their own concerns.

http://www.wm.edu/news/announcements/2017/statement-from-william--mary-president-taylor-reveley.php

So, it was a privately organized event at which presumably the organizers would decide who gets to speak - like perhaps their invited speaker?

Whether it was organized, and who organized or sponsored the event has no bearing on whether it was a public or private event. If it was a ticketed event in a private venue, then the owners and organizers can remove anyone they like for any reason, and this would not be a free speech issue. If it was open to the public, without a ticket or previous reservation, and in a public venue, then free speech must be respected, even free speech which counters and is louder than that of the organizers and their preferred scheduled speakers.

You seem to be inventing new concepts here.

So, let's see if I understand the exact shit you are slinging here. If someone holds an event in a public venue and admits the public, I am allowed to shriek at whomever is there?

Like, for example, at a grade school football game I can get on the field and shriek at the ref, the parents of the kids on the other team?

I can go into any courtroom and shriek at the prosecutor, the defendant and/or judge?

At a free concert in the park I can go up on stage and shriek at the band? Or do a 2 hour bongo solo?

 

[TSwizzle]

How about a same sex wedding ? Should the people who disagree with same sex marriage be allowed in the building to shriek and disrupt the ceremony ?

 

[KeepTalking]

Whether it was organized, and who organized or sponsored the event has no bearing on whether it was a public or private event. If it was a ticketed event in a private venue, then the owners and organizers can remove anyone they like for any reason, and this would not be a free speech issue. If it was open to the public, without a ticket or previous reservation, and in a public venue, then free speech must be respected, even free speech which counters and is louder than that of the organizers and their preferred scheduled speakers.

So your position is that anybody should be able to shout down a speaker at any public event?

Yes. That seems like the definition of free speech to me. The first amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, unless that speech is too loud."

Should Charlottesville Nazis be, for example, able to roll down with full Disaster Area sound system and drown out Democratic candidates' rallies in Virginia in 2018?

Unless there is a noise ordinance, or other law, preventing them from doing so legally, I don't see why not.

Or does the right to disrupt, shout down etc. only apply to left-wing groups?

Whether they are left or right does not matter.

 

[Elixir]

How about a same sex wedding ? Should the people who disagree with same sex marriage be allowed in the building to shriek and disrupt the ceremony ?

If it's a public building, not rented out - sure.

 

[KeepTalking]

It isn't about how many people are in the crowd, it is about where the crowd is gathered, and whether that gathering is private or public.

So then, here's what the school had to say about this case:

The event, sponsored by William & Mary's student-run programming organization Alma Mater Productions (AMP), was entitled “Students and the First Amendment.” The anticipated conversation never occurred when protestors refused to allow the invited speaker Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, to be heard. The protesters then drowned out students who gathered around Ms. Gastañaga seeking to ask her questions, hear her responses and voice their own concerns.

http://www.wm.edu/news/announcements/2017/statement-from-william--mary-president-taylor-reveley.php

So, it was a privately organized event at which presumably the organizers would decide who gets to speak - like perhaps their invited speaker?

Whether it was organized, and who organized or sponsored the event has no bearing on whether it was a public or private event. If it was a ticketed event in a private venue, then the owners and organizers can remove anyone they like for any reason, and this would not be a free speech issue. If it was open to the public, without a ticket or previous reservation, and in a public venue, then free speech must be respected, even free speech which counters and is louder than that of the organizers and their preferred scheduled speakers.

You seem to be inventing new concepts here.

I don't think I am.

So, let's see if I understand the exact shit you are slinging here.

Judging by your previous posts, I would say that the chances are slim, indeed.

If someone holds an event in a public venue and admits the public, I am allowed to shriek at whomever is there?

Exactly.

Like, for example, at a grade school football game I can get on the field and shriek at the ref, the parents of the kids on the other team?

You probably can't get on the field, as that would be a safety issue, but I will note that people are often found in the stands shrieking at the ref and opposing teams at sporting events, even those for grade schools, and are not led off in chains unless things get physical.

I can go into any courtroom and shriek at the prosecutor, the defendant and/or judge?

Generally, courtrooms are not entirely open to the public, with only a portion of the courtroom being open for the public to attend. Sometimes court proceedings are entirely closed to the public. Given this, it seems that courtrooms are not viewed as entirely public venues, and therefor, the rules of the court would hold precedence. You could probably get away with the shrieking once, before being warned by the judge. Afterward, I would expect that you would face a contempt of court charge.

At a free concert in the park I can go up on stage and shriek at the band? Or do a 2 hour bongo solo?

You could certainly go right up to the stage and shriek at the band. The stage itself may be considered a private area at a public event, so I'm not sure how attempting to take the stage would work out. Sorry, I don't have all the answers. On the other hand, I will note that at the event in question, it would appear that the protesting group did not actually take the stage. In the picture I saw, they were simply standing in front of the stage engaging in free (if loud) speech, which would be allowed at a public event, even if the stage is considered a private area.

 

[dismal]

Helpful SummerStage Tips to Know Before You Go:
Rumsey Playfield is located on East 72nd Street off Fifth Avenue. The closest subway is the 6 train to 68th Street. You can easily enter the park on 69th Street and 5th Avenue. Click here for directions
Admission and Seating Policy
Admission to all free performances (not benefit concerts) is on a first come, first-served basis, no tickets required.

http://www.centralpark.com/guide/activities/concerts/summerstage-festival.html

Free concerts in Central Park!

Who's up for some shrieking at Elvis Costello?

 

[KeepTalking]

How about a same sex wedding ? Should the people who disagree with same sex marriage be allowed in the building to shriek and disrupt the ceremony ?

Most weddings are private events, held on private grounds. Otherwise, yes. If you don't want your wedding to be disrupted, you probably shouldn't hold it in an entirely public setting. Even at that, I think there is a point in every wedding where the attendees are invited to disrupt the ceremony, or "forever hold your peace". If someone were to shriek and disrupt the ceremony at that point, I don't think the person officiating the wedding would have much of a leg to stand on in any resulting lawsuit.

- - - Updated - - -

Helpful SummerStage Tips to Know Before You Go:
Rumsey Playfield is located on East 72nd Street off Fifth Avenue. The closest subway is the 6 train to 68th Street. You can easily enter the park on 69th Street and 5th Avenue. Click here for directions
Admission and Seating Policy
Admission to all free performances (not benefit concerts) is on a first come, first-served basis, no tickets required.

http://www.centralpark.com/guide/activities/concerts/summerstage-festival.html

Free concerts in Central Park!

Who's up for some shrieking at Elvis Costello?

Yes, feel free to show up and do all the shrieking at Mr. Costello that you like. Unless you enter a restricted area to do so, you are well within your first amendment rights.

 

[dismal]

Like, for example, at a grade school football game I can get on the field and shriek at the ref, the parents of the kids on the other team?

You probably can't get on the field, as that would be a safety issue, but I will note that people are often found in the stands shrieking at the ref and opposing teams at sporting events, even those for grade schools, and are not led off in chains unless things get physical.

The field is a public place is it not? Why wouldn't my Constitutional right apply?

I've actually seen refs eject parents from games. Someone needs to let them know shrieking at refs in a public place is a constitutionally protected right.

I can go into any courtroom and shriek at the prosecutor, the defendant and/or judge?

Generally, courtrooms are not entirely open to the public, with only a portion of the courtroom being open for the public to attend. Sometimes court proceedings are entirely closed to the public. Given this, it seems that courtrooms are not viewed as entirely public venues, and therefor, the rules of the court would hold precedence. You could probably get away with the shrieking once, before being warned by the judge. Afterward, I would expect that you would face a contempt of court charge.

I'm sure any judge worth of the name would know the Constitution grants me the right to come into the public gallery of a public court room and shriek at him. They cover that sort of thing in judge school.

At a free concert in the park I can go up on stage and shriek at the band? Or do a 2 hour bongo solo?

You could certainly go right up to the stage and shriek at the band. The stage itself may be considered a private area at a public event, so I'm not sure how attempting to take the stage would work out. Sorry, I don't have all the answers. On the other hand, I will note that at the event in question, it would appear that the protesting group did not actually take the stage. In the picture I saw, they were simply standing in front of the stage engaging in free (if loud) speech, which would be allowed at a public event, even if the stage is considered a private area.

So, someone can just declare something within a public place a private place? How does that work?

- - - Updated - - -

Most weddings are private events, held on private grounds. Otherwise, yes. If you don't want your wedding to be disrupted, you probably shouldn't hold it in an entirely public setting. Even at that, I think there is a point in every wedding where the attendees are invited to disrupt the ceremony, or "forever hold your peace". If someone were to shriek and disrupt the ceremony at that point, I don't think the person officiating the wedding would have much of a leg to stand on in any resulting lawsuit.

- - - Updated - - -

Helpful SummerStage Tips to Know Before You Go:
Rumsey Playfield is located on East 72nd Street off Fifth Avenue. The closest subway is the 6 train to 68th Street. You can easily enter the park on 69th Street and 5th Avenue. Click here for directions
Admission and Seating Policy
Admission to all free performances (not benefit concerts) is on a first come, first-served basis, no tickets required.

http://www.centralpark.com/guide/activities/concerts/summerstage-festival.html

Free concerts in Central Park!

Who's up for some shrieking at Elvis Costello?

Yes, feel free to show up and do all the shrieking at Mr. Costello that you like. Unless you enter a restricted area to do so, you are well within your first amendment rights.

So, it the organizers of an ACLU free speech event declare the area of the event "a restricted area" BLM can't come and shriek at them?

It says this somewhere?

Where?