Citizen Duck,
My reading comprehension skills are declining as the day wears on (I've been up since midnight). I just wrote a post where I say the exact same thing you said--and then disagree with you!
My apologies.
I'm logging off now.
Is that what happens in the rest of the Western world? Free speech is not absolute there. (Nor is it here really.) And yet somehow they still manage to say and publish things that disagree with the government.
There's a lot of room between "look at precedent, set by decades of court decisions, within the following pre-set limits" and "let the officials decide whatever they want, with no clear limits."
You got me there. I should have added, “up to the point I infringe on your rights”. Which do not include disagreeing with you or yelling those disagreements or cursing or interrupting whatever ceremony you have planned.I disagree wholeheartedly. There is every right to regulate how public space gets used. That's why you can't yell f%!~ in the middle of a city park.There is no right to have people act as you wish in a public space.He evicted homeless people from their shelter to make room for a ceremony to remember homeless people who died in large part from lack of shelter! Come on now.That is not what happened. He made every effort to handle the issue peacefully. They were warned repeatedly what would happen next. They didn't listen.
Furthermore, they shouldn't have been living in the park. That park is city property, meaning it is there for the whole city, not just OWS, Not only was it not rightfully theirs to live in, letting them stay was a public health and safety issue.
As for the rest, I vehemently disagree. I don't think free speech should be a legal excuse for violating other people's rights to have a solemn ceremony.
Exactly. My problem isn't with people being able to say what they want. It's with America's absolutist attitude toward it. If we had something like France, Germany, Britain, or Canada had, I'd be happy with it.
Is that what happens in the rest of the Western world? Free speech is not absolute there. (Nor is it here really.) And yet somehow they still manage to say and publish things that disagree with the government.There's a lot of room between "look at precedent, set by decades of court decisions, within the following pre-set limits" and "let the officials decide whatever they want, with no clear limits."
Not having an absolutist first amendment isn't the same as letting politicians do whatever they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not having an absolutist first amendment isn't the same as letting politicians do whatever they want.
If you leave first amendment rights to the politicians' discretion (as you've said I should do), and if you set no limits on that discretion (which you've thus far declined to do), then, yes, you're letting the politicians do whatever they want.
Although this is an interesting threadjack on the nature of political systems, however, it avoids my biggest question: Your response to OWS is to call for amending the Constitution to prevent it? Really?
Not having an absolutist first amendment isn't the same as letting politicians do whatever they want.If you leave first amendment rights to the politicians' discretion (as you've said I should do), and if you set no limits on that discretion (which you've thus far declined to do), then, yes, you're letting the politicians do whatever they want.
o_O I'm advocating Euro-style speech laws, not blanket permission for politicians to decide stuff.
I'm advocating Euro-style speech laws, not blanket permission for politicians to decide stuff.
Could you cite an example that prevents blanket permission, to clear up the confusion?
Also the Judiciary could be the ones that decide things, not the Legislature. In fact that is how it happens in fact. It doesn't completely matter what the amendment says because the courts have set up case law where exceptions to the exact wording have been worked in.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The important thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that we need two standards for determining whether something constitutes protected speech. One standard for speech (and politicians) we agree with, and another for speech (and polticians) we disagree with. Otherwise, we're forced to make up arbitrary distinctions between those two groups to disguise our bias relating to the content as an objective complaint about the method.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still we don't know what really went down, most of the video is seriously edited or was not recorded until later. We don't know if some officer told people to get on the bridge.
Cops lead people onto the bridge.
People seem confuse when they stop
Emergency vehicles don't go from one side of that bridge to the other short of 9 11. If your emergency plan relies on that bridge being passable you autofail.
There are two separate roads on that bridge. If you want to keep traffic moving all you need to do is switch the lights on the other side so its now two way traffic.
The police took far longer and blocked off more traffic arresting everyone than the protestors were going to take. If the actual intent was to keep traffic moving then the plan was grossly incompetent (which is almost as likely as the police having an alterior motive)
I'm against absolutist free speech protection
But you keep touting that we need to follow the law. If the law says the constitution does grant absolute free speech, and the constitution trumps all other laws, then police are the ones in violation of the law in preventing the protestors from sending their message.
Cops lead people onto the bridge.
People seem confuse when they stop
Emergency vehicles don't go from one side of that bridge to the other short of 9 11. If your emergency plan relies on that bridge being passable you autofail.
There are two separate roads on that bridge. If you want to keep traffic moving all you need to do is switch the lights on the other side so its now two way traffic.
The police took far longer and blocked off more traffic arresting everyone than the protestors were going to take. If the actual intent was to keep traffic moving then the plan was grossly incompetent (which is almost as likely as the police having an alterior motive)
And again, we don't know for certain that is what happened. You claim the cops "lead" people onto the bridge. I've seen a brief clip of a video of cops getting in front of the group as it moved onto the bridge. Was that the cops "leading" the people onto the bridge or trying to stop cars from plowing into demonstrators? I don't know. You obviously were there since you seem to KNOW.
Again, if the cops asked them to get off and the protesters turned it into a sit in, then arresting them would get the bridge clear faster than allowing them to sit there. Did that happen? Again, I don't know, but since you were obviously there, you DO.
And again, we don't know for certain that is what happened.
You're never going to get certainty.
You claim the cops "lead" people onto the bridge. I've seen a brief clip of a video of cops getting in front of the group as it moved onto the bridge. Was that the cops "leading" the people onto the bridge or trying to stop cars from plowing into demonstrators? I don't know. You obviously were there since you seem to KNOW.
I wasn't there, but that was the impression i got watching that video as well as longer ones, as well as from videos by the protestors.
Again, if the cops asked them to get off and the protesters turned it into a sit in, then arresting them would get the bridge clear faster than allowing them to sit there. Did that happen? Again, I don't know, but since you were obviously there, you DO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=-7A1lSrTSwc
You can hear the crowd yelling "Keep moving" and "March march march" . Obviously if there was a plan to stop and hold a sit in it didn't apply to the whole crowd. You can also see iin other videos that it wasn't possible for the protestors to leave at some point, and I haven't seen anything indicating that they were ever told to leave or stop.
You'll notice at the start of your video there that there were vehicles in the far lane. Funny, if the police had meant for the protesters to have the entire bridge, how did those vehicles get stuck on the bridge? Now if the protesters had started in one lane and then slowly spread out to cover the bridge ("Our Bridge!" as they claim), then there being vehicles stuck behind them already on the bridge makes a lot more sense.
EDIT: We are also seeing the arse end and we can't really tell what happened in the front. I will agree that it looks like there is a group of cops behind them. That may mean they would be arrested if they tried to back up or maybe the cops were keeping other cars from running them down (or of course both).
The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.I disagree. Tolerating criticism of the government is one thing. Tolerating purposely incendiary public demonstrations is quite another, and I'm completely against it.being used as an excuse to tolerate things that the government should be slamming it's foot down onThis is the source of our fundamental disagreement. I do not think the purpose of the government is to "slam its foot down" on anything you personally -- or any other one person or small group -- happens to disapprove of.Purposely incendiary public demonstrations are a valid tool of protest. Ask the Egyptians in Tehrir Square.
Ask Martin Luther King. Many Civil Rights era marches and demonstrations were met by police with billy clubs and dogs. The Selma bridge was one example.I assume you think they should have dispersed quietly or never marched at all since they violated local laws. Or is it those were in a good cause and you don't approve of OWS?
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
According to what I've read, including the video that Citizen Pres Man has linked, it was the cops that blocked the bridge in order to arrest the protestors.I'm still waiting for the evidence I'm wrong so you can prove it to me. Give me a situation where OWS is causing the blockage of roads like you've been harping on. And show me how it is different from any other demonstration.Wasn't this a situation that arose pretty early on?
I live in Brooklyn. I wasn't at that particular protest. However, I can say that what Pres Man and BNW say above is probably correct. The average person who has had to voluntarily deal with mounted officers or whiteshirts usually *never* wants to see one again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A crowd which deliberately parks itself in the flow of emergency vehicles is deliberately blocking the flow of emergency vehicles.Yes, you're right. Deliberately block the flow of emergency vehicles and, miraculously, there's no chance that anyone will get hurt as a result.Now there's a huge leap of logic. Nice jump check.
The next step in your plan is for someone to end up dead because emergency vehicles were impeded by the crowd.Who is deliberately blocking the flow of emergency vehicles?
We've moved from "crowds might block" to "deliberately".
I must remember to teleport to work on the morrow, lest I block the free flow of emergency vehicles by crossing the street or riding my bike to work.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.I disagree. Tolerating criticism of the government is one thing. Tolerating purposely incendiary public demonstrations is quite another, and I'm completely against it.being used as an excuse to tolerate things that the government should be slamming it's foot down onThis is the source of our fundamental disagreement. I do not think the purpose of the government is to "slam its foot down" on anything you personally -- or any other one person or small group -- happens to disapprove of.Purposely incendiary public demonstrations are a valid tool of protest. Ask the Egyptians in Tehrir Square.
Ask Martin Luther King. Many Civil Rights era marches and demonstrations were met by police with billy clubs and dogs. The Selma bridge was one example.I assume you think they should have dispersed quietly or never marched at all since they violated local laws. Or is it those were in a good cause and you don't approve of OWS?
Read the rest of the exchange over this, please.
I did. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm one of the few people who uses that statement quite literally.
ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?
"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."
Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."
Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.
1. Don't say 'capitalism.'
"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."
2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'
"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."
3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'
"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."
4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'
"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."
He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.
"So why are we talking about jobs?"
5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'
"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."
6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'
"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."
7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'
"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."
Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.
8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'
Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."
9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'
"There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."
10. Always blame Washington.
Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."
BONUS:
Don't say 'bonus!'
Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."
"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"
The truth is uglier than anything any of you guys can make up. One of the premiere spin doctors at work, here. He said every word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course. Control the language, control the perception.
The fact that Frank Luntz, the King of Spin, is "scared to death" of OWS should be all the evidence we need that it's having a serious effect on the national discourse.
|
It says peacefully, not unobtrusively. In fact half the effectiveness of assembling IS making a nuisance out of yourself.The most famous civil gathering in US history was Woodstock - which wasn't in a city. It managed to be quite effective without deliberately blocking the flow of emergency vehicles.
Wow, do you not know the history of that event. It was a clusterf@%@.
And, reading your further posts about it, you're falling into Boomer Revisionist History as well. The promoters and the bands had no interest other than getting paid, there wasn't any "cumbaya" going on. Hell, they had to fly cash in or half the bands weren't going on (including everyone's favorite "anti-establishment" act, the Grateful Dead).
All that "cornerstone of the peace movement" b@&&!+&+ was tacked on after the fact.
Seriously.
Reading backwards, I have to say the trolls were far less obvious a couple years ago. Quality has definitely dropped off.
HD, you used to live up by me. Any experiences with mounted officers or whiteshirts?
|
|
Reading backwards, I have to say the trolls were far less obvious a couple years ago. Quality has definitely dropped off.HD, you used to live up by me. Any experiences with mounted officers or whiteshirts?
I had some run ins with the horse cops in Central Park, they were dicks but they didn't beat me up or anything. Never had dealings with the white shirts. But, then, I never really was around anything that they'd show up for. Rousting kids in the park for bombing isn't exactly up to their pay grade.
The above linky no worky. New link here.
More:
I'm not saying that Frank Luntz has lost his mojo. After all, from Canada to Israel, from the GOP's political elites to the corporate suites, his cup still runneth over with gigs. Nevertheless, this particular ten-point program lacks the pizzazz of some of his previous efforts. It seems a bit tired and at a loss for creativity. In fact, most of the items are repeats of terms and phrases already being used by GOPers.
Writing for Main Street, a project of Working America Community, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, Seth D. Michaels pointed out that Luntz's ten-point project betrayed the "contempt Luntz clearly has for the intelligence of protesters and working-class voters. These governors are slashing jobs, cutting services people depend on, privatizing state operations and limiting the right to vote, but they want to convince Occupy protesters that they ‘get it.'"
Michaels noted that Luntz's talking points are an expression of "anxiety and desperation": "It's the anxiety and desperation of the 1 percent and their political allies, who know that a message about economic fairness resonates with voters and threatens their control over our politics and our economy. Take these talking points for what they are-calculated falsehoods, and a cheap, transparent attempt to use real economic worries to support the same old 1% agenda."
The above linky no worky. New link here.
More:
I'm not saying that Frank Luntz has lost his mojo. After all, from Canada to Israel, from the GOP's political elites to the corporate suites, his cup still runneth over with gigs. Nevertheless, this particular ten-point program lacks the pizzazz of some of his previous efforts. It seems a bit tired and at a loss for creativity. In fact, most of the items are repeats of terms and phrases already being used by GOPers.
Writing for Main Street, a project of Working America Community, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, Seth D. Michaels pointed out that Luntz's ten-point project betrayed the "contempt Luntz clearly has for the intelligence of protesters and working-class voters. These governors are slashing jobs, cutting services people depend on, privatizing state operations and limiting the right to vote, but they want to convince Occupy protesters that they ‘get it.'"
Michaels noted that Luntz's talking points are an expression of "anxiety and desperation": "It's the anxiety and desperation of the 1 percent and their political allies, who know that a message about economic fairness resonates with voters and threatens their control over our politics and our economy. Take these talking points for what they are-calculated falsehoods, and a cheap, transparent attempt to use real economic worries to support the same old 1% agenda."
"economic fairness"
**cough**code words**cough**
So fairness is an cynical construct design to bilk the job creators of their wealth -- unless we're talking about progressive taxation, which is unfair.
Quality b&#+*@&# is, at the very least, internally consistent...
What is "fair"? Equal pay for equal work? Everyone getting the same pay? Those that work harder getting more pay? Those that aren't able to work harder still getting good pay?
"Fairness" is a meaningless phrase. Of course nobody is going to be against "fairness", but they are going to have different ideas of what "fair" is. If someone wants to rant about others using code words, they should probably avoid using them themselves.
What is "fair"? Equal pay for equal work? Everyone getting the same pay? Those that work harder getting more pay? Those that aren't able to work harder still getting good pay?
"Fairness" is a meaningless phrase. Of course nobody is going to be against "fairness", but they are going to have different ideas of what "fair" is. If someone wants to rant about others using code words, they should probably avoid using them themselves.
I do not believe fairness is, or was intended as, a "codeword."
Certainly our ideas about fairness can differ, but to deny such a concept exists in defense of increasing income inequality, only to turn around and invoke the same idea in opposition to progressive taxation -- well, that is sheer hypocrisy.
I do not believe fairness is, or was intended as, a "codeword."
It was actually "economic fairness" not just "fairness". And the fact that some don't view that as code speak is telling.
I do not believe fairness is, or was intended as, a "codeword."It was actually "economic fairness" not just "fairness". And the fact that some don't view that as code speak is telling.
Naturally. Only one possessing your rapier wit can see things as they truly are. Most of us are stuck stumbling blindly about, bereft of your superior insight.
Reading backwards, I have to say the trolls were far less obvious a couple years ago. Quality has definitely dropped off.
Believe it or not, I actually wasn't trolling, despite how it may have appeared.
Reading backwards, I have to say the trolls were far less obvious a couple years ago. Quality has definitely dropped off.Believe it or not, I actually wasn't trolling, despite how it may have appeared.
It is hard to believe, because your overarching opinion has become "people should just shut up and obey those in charge".
It is hard to believe, because your overarching opinion has become "people should just shut up and obey those in charge".Reading backwards, I have to say the trolls were far less obvious a couple years ago. Quality has definitely dropped off.Believe it or not, I actually wasn't trolling, despite how it may have appeared.
I never said that, I said that I want stuff like half of WBC's behavior banned in public. That's far different than saying dissension against the government should be illegal, which I repeatedly said I don't believe.
I never said that, I said that I want stuff like half of WBC's behavior banned in public. That's far different than saying dissension against the government should be illegal, which I repeatedly said I don't believe.
WBC? I'm not sure what that is. Are you talking about OWS? Or Occupy Denver like we were talking about before?
Look, I'll put it together again for you. You and others have been saying "well, gee, they can protest but gosh why do they have to be such a nuisance." The ENTIRE POINT of protesting is to be a nuisance. To be visible. To agitate without being violent.
Your response was "I want half of X's behavior banned in public". No that doesn't sound totalitarian at all.
I never said that, I said that I want stuff like half of WBC's behavior banned in public. That's far different than saying dissension against the government should be illegal, which I repeatedly said I don't believe.WBC? I'm not sure what that is. Are you talking about OWS? Or Occupy Denver like we were talking about before?
Look, I'll put it together again for you. You and others have been saying "well, gee, they can protest but gosh why do they have to be such a nuisance." The ENTIRE POINT of protesting is to be a nuisance. To be visible. To agitate without being violent.
Your response was "I want half of X's behavior banned in public". No that doesn't sound totalitarian at all.
WBC is Westboro Baptist Church, the guys who go to military funerals and protest, calling the deaths God's justified retribution for homosexuality and celebrating the suffering of the bereaved. It's completely disgusting, and shouldn't be tolerated. That's the half of their public behavior I want banned. Same with OWS and the homeless vigil. Leave. Funerals. And. Vigils. Alone. I don't care how totalitarian it sounds, that s@!+ has no place in protest.
Plus, I already said, MORE THAN ONCE, that I don't have a problem with most of what OWS is saying, or think that they shouldn't say it. My problem is their methods.
WBC is Westboro Baptist Church, the guys who go to military funerals and protest, calling the deaths God's justified retribution for homosexuality and celebrating the suffering of the bereaved. It's completely disgusting, and shouldn't be tolerated. That's the half of their public behavior I want banned. Same with OWS and the homeless vigil. Leave. Funerals. And. Vigils. Alone. I don't care how totalitarian it sounds, that s+$# has no place in protest.
Plus, I already said, MORE THAN ONCE, that I don't have a problem with most of what OWS is saying, or think that they shouldn't say it. My problem is their methods.
I agree. WBC (now that I know that acronym) is a deplorable organization. But to say they don't have the right to exercise free speech because YOU don't like them is not only egocentric zealotry, it opens the door for someone to tell you what you can't say.
Protesting at funerals, vigils, et al. gets publicity which is the point asking any group to stop doing something that is a)legal b)efficiently promotes their cause is not going to happen. Saying that it should be illegal because YOU don't like it, is ridiculous.
Let me posit for you a hypothetical. I'll warn you now it's pretty out there. A convicted serial child rapist and murderer who served with distinction in Vietnam is given a state funeral and interment in Arlington. Several Senators who served with the guy attend. You think it's utterly unreasonable for people to protest merely because it is a religious and/or memorial function? What about the families of the victims?
I'd say protest before the ceremony or after the ceremony is over.
WBC is Westboro Baptist Church, the guys who go to military funerals and protest, calling the deaths God's justified retribution for homosexuality and celebrating the suffering of the bereaved. It's completely disgusting, and shouldn't be tolerated. That's the half of their public behavior I want banned. Same with OWS and the homeless vigil. Leave. Funerals. And. Vigils. Alone. I don't care how totalitarian it sounds, that s+$# has no place in protest.
Plus, I already said, MORE THAN ONCE, that I don't have a problem with most of what OWS is saying, or think that they shouldn't say it. My problem is their methods.
I agree. WBC (now that I know that acronym) is a deplorable organization. But to say they don't have the right to exercise free speech because YOU don't like them is not only egocentric zealotry, it opens the door for someone to tell you what you can't say.
Protesting at funerals, vigils, et al. gets publicity which is the point asking any group to stop doing something that is a)legal b)efficiently promotes their cause is not going to happen. Saying that it should be illegal because YOU don't like it, is ridiculous.
Let me posit for you a hypothetical. I'll warn you now it's pretty out there. A convicted serial child rapist and murderer who served with distinction in Vietnam is given a state funeral and interment in Arlington. Several Senators who served with the guy attend. You think it's utterly unreasonable for people to protest merely because it is a religious and/or memorial function? What about the families of the victims?
Well if that was the trade off, I'd be pretty fine with it. Frankly I am a bit bothered by people that hold celebrations for death sentences being carried out and such. The death of any human being should not be celebrated or "protested" in my opinion, it is a sad and tragic thing, sometimes necessary but never something to be used to make us feel better about ourselves.
Also, not all speech, even political speech, is protected in the US. There is the "fighting words" doctrine:
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [that] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."Fighting_words
Fortunately for the WBC (and unfortunately for the rest of us) the SCotUS has already ruled that the protest at funerals are not considered fighting words. Having seen enough conflicts in my hometown (where WBC is from as well sadly), I will have to respectfully disagree with the SCotUS.
WBC is Westboro Baptist Church, the guys who go to military funerals and protest, calling the deaths God's justified retribution for homosexuality and celebrating the suffering of the bereaved. It's completely disgusting, and shouldn't be tolerated. That's the half of their public behavior I want banned. Same with OWS and the homeless vigil. Leave. Funerals. And. Vigils. Alone. I don't care how totalitarian it sounds, that s%*$ has no place in protest.
Plus, I already said, MORE THAN ONCE, that I don't have a problem with most of what OWS is saying, or think that they shouldn't say it. My problem is their methods.
Okay, I see the kind of behaviour that bothers you.
First, our systems are not so apart, from a functional point of view. Your legislators are forbidden to restrict freedom of speech by the first amendment; so the judiciary branch took the ball and edicted cases where it can be restricted, and could do so again if they were so inclined. Our legislators can directly edict laws restricting freedom of speech in some cases (mainly, infringment on other people rights). The end result can be quite close.
We have no lobbysts so crass as to crash funerals, but if it were so I have no doubt that they could be indicted for disturbance of the peace.
I have a quite recent and quite close example of a fringe, extremist christian group who crashed a theater play about the life of Christ and ended up at the police station (by crashing I mean going inside the premises and on stage, yellling, throwing noxious things on the attendants, etc., not holding a peaceful protest outside). For the record, the local bishop called them nuts who hadn't understood a thing about the play, which he qualified of "christian friendly".
Does this compare to what OWS did in the homeless vigil you spoke of?
EDIT: just wikipied WBC... Wow.
EDIT2: I did some checks, and here is how it would play out in France for WBC. Public hatemongering against a particular group of people (including those defined by sexual orientation) falls here under a 1881 law, quite often refurbished. It's potentially punished by fines and a five years term in jail if nothing harmful happens ; it's plain and simple complicity otherwise. A "personne morale" (church, corporation, club, etc.) could also be disbanded and prohibited, period.
I do not believe fairness is, or was intended as, a "codeword."It was actually "economic fairness" not just "fairness". And the fact that some don't view that as code speak is telling.
The fact that some do is what's telling. You watch Fox, don't ya? Tell the truth, now...
Then explain to us how the wholesale attack on the middle class by the top .01% is perfectly fine and how it would be immoral to address it.
Wow, do you not know the history of that event. It was a clusterf&@+.
And, reading your further posts about it, you're falling into Boomer Revisionist History as well. The promoters and the bands had no interest other than getting paid, there wasn't any "cumbaya" going on. Hell, they had to fly cash in or half the bands weren't going on (including everyone's favorite "anti-establishment" act, the Grateful Dead).
All that "cornerstone of the peace movement" b$~+@*+@ was tacked on after the fact.
Seriously.
I think that if you read my posts above, you'll see that I pretty much agree with you, BUT, then you had to go and bend the stick the other way and attack the Dead!
I don't understand the animus against them. I think they were one of the best bands the USA ever produced, up there with Louis Armstrong and the Hot Fives, The Ramones, Booker T. and the MGs, The Velvet Underground or Public Enemy.
If you compare them with other acts of their time, they're nowhere near as smug as The Jefferson Airplane or as snotty as Bob Dylan. All they ever wanted to do was tons of drugs and play amazing music. What's wrong with that?