Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 08, 2018

Forty-three percent of Republicans think President Trump "should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior," while only 36 percent disagreed with the statement, according to an Ipsos poll released Tuesday. A large number of Republicans polled also seem to take issue with the media in general, with 48 percent agreeing that the news media is "the enemy of the American people."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Forty-three percent of Republicans think President Trump "should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior,"

Of course they won't do it directly. They'll try to have the private companies which own or supply the media these outlets use collude to suspend them for terms of service violations. Good thing there's no precedent for this, eh?

#1 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-08-07 02:44 PM | Reply

Righties are such stupid sheep.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-07 02:53 PM | Reply

Good thing there's no precedent for this, eh?

#1 | Posted by sentinel

Do it or STFU.

Can't wait to see the consequences.

If the past is prologue I am sure a good time will be had by all.

#3 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-07 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

'Forty-three percent of Republicans think President Trump "should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior'

Forty-three percent of those who still identify themselves as GOP aren't really Americans any more.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2018-08-07 04:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

What do you mean zed? Their actions are driven by the patriotism and love of the Constitution.

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-07 08:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 2


... President Trump "should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior," ...

From what I've seen, "bad behavior" is defined by Republicans as ~accurate reporting that happens to be critical of Pres Trump.~

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-08 09:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

How many of these Republicans who think Donald should close media outlets also believe that Donald can take their guns?

I'm personally not sure how useful the 2nd Amendment is without the first but then again I'm an old-fashioned, non-fascist American.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2018-08-08 10:05 AM | Reply

The worst part of this story is that I'm not even surprised by it.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-08 10:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

'Forty-three percent of Republicans think President Trump "should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior'

These are Putin Republicans.

#9 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-08-08 11:06 AM | Reply

Forty-three percent of those who still identify themselves as GOP aren't really Americans any more.

pbs.twimg.com

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-08 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

And nearly half of Republicans believe that Adolph Hitler has gotten a bad rap. So who is really surprised?

#11 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-08-08 11:11 AM | Reply

The Trumplicans' willingness to go along with their hero and give up what Made America Great in the first place is instructive in understanding how easily fascism could be implemented in Germany and Italy in WW2.

#12 | Posted by cbob at 2018-08-08 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

-From what I've seen, "bad behavior" is defined by Republicans as ~accurate reporting that happens to be critical of Pres Trump.~

I guess we are all left to make up our definition of "bad behavior".

WTF does that mean anyway?

Are there barriers and limits to what the press can get away with? absolutely......but is that what the polled folks meant? or just that they cause an inconvenience for the president?

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 11:21 AM | Reply

Eb, I believe we can assume 'bad behavior' is Putin Republicans code for 'negative press reflections on Trump and his criminal administration.

#14 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-08-08 11:26 AM | Reply

14

for some, yes. But it's not a coincidence that a very subjective term was used to skew these results.

But it doesn't matter anyway.....what's the point of these surveys? To tell the rest of us what we already know about the narrow mindedness and lack of objectivity of Trump supporters?

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 11:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If they ever put any of this into practice they better hope there is never a Democratic President because if there is Fox News is toast.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-08 11:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The IPSOS poll was linked in the article:
www.ipsos.com
You may download the full report with cross-tabs (links at the bottom)

Republicans find Trump "Trustworthy" by 77%, and Obama "Untrustworthy" by 78%. Oh my. That's just insane when you consider Trump lies constantly.

Then there's this contradiction: Republicans say that "Freedom of Speech is one of the values that makes America great" by 89%. Contrast that with giving the President power to close news outlets "engaged in bad behavior" (whatever the heck that means!). 23% of Republicans Strongly agree with that, while 64% of Democrats Strongly disagree. Only 18% of Republicans Strongly disagree.

#17 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 11:50 AM | Reply

Yes and I'm sure when Obama wanted to shutter Fox News a much higher percentage of Democrats would have supported it so enough of the faux anti-American outrage.

#18 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-08-08 11:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1


@#18 ... I'm sure when Obama wanted to shutter Fox News ...

Got a link for that?

thx.

#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-08 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Fishpaw,

When Obama tried to freeze out the FOX correspondent all of the other correspondents went to bat (peers and competitors) and the Obama administration backed off.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 12:01 PM | Reply

Thanks Jeff -
That's correct. Obama still went on Fox and did interviews. His attempt to "freeze out" Fox didn't and doesn't compare to what Trump's doing, saying and has done.

#18 - that's fundamentally against our DNA. The Authoritarian Left has mostly disappeared and been absorbed by the Right due to the Democratic Party's support for "gay rights, immigrant rights, civil rights and other forms of freedom and equality." Those that are Authoritarian in nature love and support Trump:

www.pri.org

#21 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 12:10 PM | Reply

Yav,

I think the Obama administration calculated that Fox's competitors despised them so much and were so ideologically-aligned with his policies and administration that they'd be happy about the freeze-out. That was a gross miscalculation and when the press corp rebelled (understanding the longer-term implication of tacitly supporting such a move) the administration wisely backed off.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 12:13 PM | Reply

@#20 ...Obama tried to freeze out the FOX correspondent ...

I know about that and the support of the Fox correspondent shown by the others, and also about the people on Fox News saying fmr Pres Obama went to an Islamic school in Indonesia and Mr Ailes of Fox News [intentionally?] confusing fmr Pres Obama with Osama bin Laden.

But I've never seen fmr Pres Obama try to shutter Fox News, as Fishpaw asserts. That's why I asked for a link.

#23 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-08 12:15 PM | Reply

#23 - thanks for clarifying, Lamplighter.

(always liked the name and the connotation)

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 12:17 PM | Reply

when Obama wanted to shutter Fox News

Freezing one correspondent out of a press pool (unsuccessfully) is not the same as shuttering an entire news agency. Congratulations on derailing the thread. How many rubles did you get for that?

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-08 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

--The Authoritarian Left has mostly disappeared

Hahahaha. They are shutting down free speech on campuses across the country, getting politically incorrect professors, pundits, professionals, etc., fired, ruining careers, deplatforming people on facebook, twitter, etc. If that's a disappearance I'd hate to see what a reappearance would look like.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 12:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#26 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

"They are shutting down free speech on campuses across the country"

The only reason the right can spread this lie so effectively is that they know conservatives are too ----- to set foot on a college campus and see what it is actually like. The reason conservatives don't go to college is because they can't stand their irrational beliefs and deplorable lives being challenged.

#27 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 12:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dr Jones,

Countless recent examples can be provided that Back up Nulli's Claim.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 12:39 PM | Reply

Countless?

#29 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 12:46 PM | Reply

Countless?

#29 | Posted by YAV

Meaning he never counted them.

#30 | Posted by Zed at 2018-08-08 12:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 6

Numerous. And it seems to be a growing trend.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 12:52 PM | Reply

--Countless?

Yes, countless. I could post dozens of stories every day about the authoritarian left's assault on liberal, 1st amendment values.

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 12:55 PM | Reply

Jeff, please link to some of those "countless" examples, and to validate your contention that those people in these incidents, site a proper analysis that assesses their political ideology. Otherwise you, just like Null, are reacting and throwing out a "whataboutism" knee-jerk counter-reaction.

Also, I cited an analysis, backed up by polling. Null is a perfect example of what's cited in the link I provided.

#33 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Excuse me - I withdraw my request.
I don't want to take this off subject.
The facts are the Republicans, by a plurality, want to give Trump, a clear Authoritarian, the OK to shut down the Press for whatever they deem "bad behavior."

That lone says it all - and WHO is for it.

#34 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Excuse me - I withdraw my request.
I don't want to take this off subject.

I was going to offer to post a few examples on the Nooner.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 01:00 PM | Reply

I could post dozens of stories every day about the authoritarian left's assault on liberal, 1st amendment values.

And yet your general examples included places like "facebook" and "twitter," to which the First Amendment does not apply.

All this in a thread about how nearly half of Republicans want Trump to have the power to shutter news agencies. Didn't take very long for the thread to be about Obama and liberals instead. Wish I could say you were Russian trolls but unfortunately you probably live here and vote.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-08 01:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

--Excuse me - I withdraw my request.

You're the one who claimed the "disappearance of the authoritarian left". If anything, the authoritarian left is stronger than ever.

#37 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 01:02 PM | Reply

This shoulda been a poll question.

If you're okay with the President shutting down news organizations, you really should move to Russia. It violates the spirit and the letter of the law.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 01:04 PM | Reply

I think it would be very interesting to go into a time machine back into 2014 and ask this exact same set of questions and see how the numbers breakdown.

From the article:

12 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents said the president should have the power to close down news operations "engaged in bad behavior."

The scariest thing for me with this is just how broad of a swathe of our citizens are either ignorant of the 1st Amendment or are aware of it but simply deem it to be irrelevant.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 01:05 PM | Reply

You're the one who claimed the "disappearance of the authoritarian left". If anything, the authoritarian left is stronger than ever.

#37 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Tin Foil Hat Gang rides again I see.

#40 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-08 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I think it would be very interesting to go into a time machine back into 2014 and ask this exact same set of questions and see how the numbers breakdown.

More veiled whataboutism. Is it that difficult to condemn the -------- in your party?

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-08 01:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The scariest thing for me with this is just how broad of a swathe of our citizens"

It's only broad within the GOP.
It's pretty narrow for independents
It's narrowest among Democrats.

Thoughts on that?
Or... are you going to pretend this isn't a partisan issue...

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 01:19 PM | Reply

More veiled whataboutism. Is it that difficult to condemn the -------- in your party?

#41 | POSTED BY JOE

It has nothing to do with whataboutism. It would simply be interesting to see the breakdown by group (Republican, Democrat, Independent) with a different POTUS in office. You are reading too much into my comment.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 01:21 PM | Reply

#42

Partisanship absolutely is involved, especially in light of the constant drum-beat of "fake news!" and "enemy of the people" coming from our POS of a person in the WH. I absolutely believe that Trump's rhetoric has driven the number higher among Republicans than it would have otherwise been. This is why I made the comment regarding the time machine - I think it would be interesting to track the change.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 01:24 PM | Reply

Countless recent examples can be provided that Back up Nulli's Claim.

#28 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You can't count pansy conservatives being too afraid of the crowd to speak as a hindrance of free speech. Those are all prime examples of the free speech of protesters working. Can you provide any actual examples?

#45 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 01:26 PM | Reply

#43 - we don't have that, do we, Jeff?
Please read what I cited.
It comes as close to answering your question as you'll likely get without a time machine.
It also blasts Nulli's "truthiness" response.

#46 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 01:27 PM | Reply

Yav,

The piece you cited is interesting, but it's also a mixed bag. It cites some work by social scientists who have spent decades attempting to study this very thing. It quotes a couple of social scientists, but doesn't link to their work nor does it cite any studies that may have reached different conclusions. It also cites a source, Der Speigel that is a bit more dubious.

Ultimately, the problem with these kinds of studies is the attempt to pigeon-hole people into groups. It's not that the work itself isn't worthwhile or informative, it's that partisans (not calling you a partisan) seize on just about anything to broad-brush smear their opposition.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 01:38 PM | Reply

Thanks for checking it out.
You may discount it as you wish, however the stats in the article dove tail with the findings of this poll, so I found it informative and instructive both to the Fishpaw conjecture and this article.

For instance:

MacWilliams says that 49 percent of the likely Republican voters he surveyed scored in the top quarter of the authoritarian scale, more than twice as many as Democratic voters. (link to the analysis, with nice graphs, too.)

And the thing is, it's from February 25, 2016. It's only grown since.

#48 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 01:55 PM | Reply

Excuse me - I withdraw my request.
I don't want to take this off subject.

Too late, here is a list of the 11 times campus speakers were shouted down by leftist protesters so far this school year.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 01:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

So now "leftist protesters" are automatically Authoritarians? Oh. According to your right-wing grudge based source, they're fascists. I don't think your source knows what fascism is, which kind of makes their citing protests against Yiannopoulos as an example, a bit amusing.

The writer sounds just like the Republicans in this poll that want News organizations shut down for "bad behavior." You do get that sticking anyone that disagrees into "left Authoritarians" so you have something to compare to right-wing Authoritarians is moronic, right?

if you're going to bother responding to a request that was withdrawn, at least respond with what was requested.

Better yet, don't bother in the first place, rather than look like you just have to deflect.

#50 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 02:06 PM | Reply

LMAO - of course Null would flag #49 as "Newsworthy" - likely without reading it or doing any critical thinking.

Dude's amygdala must occupy his full frontal cortex by now.

#51 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 02:07 PM | Reply

--LMAO - of course Null would flag #49 as "Newsworthy" - likely without reading it or doing any critical thinking.

lol. I've been following the authoritarian left on sites like CollegeFix and Campus Reform for years. It's news your team wants to sweep under the rug because it doesn't support The Narrative.

#52 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 02:10 PM | Reply

Too late, here is a list of the 11 times campus speakers were shouted down by leftist protesters so far this school year.

#49 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Thanks RoC, this was exactly my point; they were shut down BECAUSE of free speech.

#53 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 02:17 PM | Reply

They were shut down by anti-free speech LW authoritarians.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 02:21 PM | Reply

#52 - That's nice. I especially like "The Narrative" in caps.
You do know what "projection" is, right?

I'm still laughing at that cited source calling protesters against neo-nazi and authoritarians "fascists."
Surely that level of idiocy isn't lost on you?

#55 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

(link to the analysis, with nice graphs, too.)

#48 | POSTED BY YAV

You always manage to find sources that provide nice graphs.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 02:22 PM | Reply

Thanks Jeff.
I do try - and sometimes I get lucky :)

#57 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-08 02:25 PM | Reply

They were shut down by anti-free speech LW authoritarians.

#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You mean; They backed down because of anti-hate speech LW patriots. But spin it however you need to sleep at night Jeffj.

Its pathetic that you would consider protests (a bastion of the 1st amendment) as being against free speech. You need to lay off the koolaid.

#58 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 02:36 PM | Reply

Too late, here is a list of the 11 times campus speakers were shouted down by leftist protesters so far this school year.

#49 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Thanks RoC, this was exactly my point; they were shut down BECAUSE of free speech.

#53 | Posted by IndianaJones

The protestors have the same right to speak as the speaker does.

The speaker could have continued to speak or go speak somewhere where people really wanted to hear what he had to say. Just because YOU are free to speak does not mean WE have to listen.

Many Americans who speak today the are also not heard because they are either being drowned out by others who are just more vocal or they do not have the money to compete or rise above the din.

#59 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-08 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Left-wing authoritarians" with no authority other than their own voices?

Like Ambition, Authoritarianism should be made of sterner stuff.

(And so should JeffJ's snowflake.)

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 02:39 PM | Reply

They shouted louder. Whaaaaa!
No one could hear our free speech because of their free speech
Sniffle

Sincerely

Jefftoecentrefidian

#61 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-08 02:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Shutting down free speech of ideological opponents in now called "free speech" by the authoritarian left. Antifa thugs beating up opponents is just "freedom of assembly." Orwell is spinning in his grave.

#62 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 02:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A protest is free speech, you insufferable blowhard.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Interesting that the toddlers on the DR Left think that shouting someone down to shut off their speech equates to free speech. When you take any act to prohibit someone from speaking, you have infringed on their 1st Amendment rights.

DBoy got it right when he said "The protestors have the same right to speak as the speaker does."

The point is, the protestors can speak separately from the speaker, who should also be allowed to say what he or she wants to say.

That is the whole point.

#64 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2018-08-08 02:54 PM | Reply

When you take any act to prohibit someone from speaking, you have infringed on their 1st Amendment rights.

That's not how the freedom of speech works.

You only have the freedom of speech as it relates to the government. IOW, me shouting you down at a rally would not equate to me violating your constitutional rights. It would take government action to silence you that would entail violation of constitutional rights.

#65 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-08 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Also, it's not just protestors attacking free speech, it's SJW college administrators who impose extortionist "security fees" on "controversial" (i.e., politically incorrect) speakers. Or demand that "free speech" be "pre-approved"

New university policy requires students to get permission for ‘free speech activities'
Allegra Thatcher - Franciscan University of Steubenville

#66 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 02:59 PM | Reply

#59

NW mostly as it relates to this sentence "Many Americans who speak today the are also not heard because they are either being drowned out by others who are just more vocal or they do not have the money to compete or rise above the din."

Everyone should be heard, not just the voices that you want to hear or have the most money.

#67 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You mean; They backed down because of anti-hate speech LW patriots.

#58 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

"Hate speech" is defined as anything you disagree with. How convenient.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You only have the freedom of speech as it relates to the government. IOW, me shouting you down at a rally would not equate to me violating your constitutional rights. It would take government action to silence you that would entail violation of constitutional rights.

#65 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2018-08-08 02:57 PM

Not true, for example, you can't stop a protest against a corporation, a movie, a sports team, etc. All actions to stop speech, unless it is offensive or dangerous, is a violation of the speakers constitutional rights.

#69 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 03:02 PM | Reply

"When you take any act to prohibit someone from speaking, you have infringed on their 1st Amendment rights."

Bull.

When the government prohibits you from speaking, that inhibits your first amendment rights.

When you get shouted down by a crowd, that's the crowd exercising their first amendment rights.

P.S. You're logged in under the wrong account again, "LeftCoastLawyer."

P.P.S. No honest lawyer can actually be so stupid as to say what you said about the First Amendment. But then, we already knew you're dishonest. Thanks for the reminder.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

--You only have the freedom of speech as it relates to the government.

Like public, taxpayer-funded universities. Or private universities if they or their students are receiving taxpayer money.

#71 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 03:03 PM | Reply

So, if a college group rents a lecture hall and invites an individual to speak on a given topic at a given date and time it's totally cool for "protestors" to shut down the venue through non-stop shouting and heckling and even violence, if that's what it takes?

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 03:03 PM | Reply

#62 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Read Donner's post. Just because rightwingers have no conviction does not mean free speech was violated; it just means rightwingers are p****es, which explains how trump grabbed them all so easily.

#73 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 03:04 PM | Reply

Back on topic, it is interesting that the toddlers on the DR Right are conspicuously avoiding this thread like the plague, preferring to spew their hate on the Nooner.

#74 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2018-08-08 03:05 PM | Reply

P.S. You're logged in under the wrong account again, "LeftCoastLawyer."
P.P.S. No honest lawyer can actually be so stupid as to say what you said about the First Amendment. But then, we already knew you're dishonest. Thanks for the reminder.

Wrong again, but if it makes you feel better, go right ahead and spew your nonsense.

#75 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 03:06 PM | Reply

So, if a college group rents a lecture hall and invites an individual to speak on a given topic at a given date and time it's totally cool for "protestors" to shut down the venue through non-stop shouting and heckling and even violence, if that's what it takes?

#72 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

If the speaker wasn't a bitch he would still speak. If he speaker wasn't a hatemonger, the public would't be so against their speech. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, but American conservatives are the most self-victimizing people in the world; so here you are crying about it.

#76 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 03:06 PM | Reply

Remember when the usual Cletus's were going to Town Halls and shouting down every one, and anyone, cause OBAMA.

Now it is all boohooing and crocodile tears from the party of perpetual victimhood

HaHa

#77 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-08 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Not true, for example, you can't stop a protest against a corporation, a movie, a sports team, etc.

How is that practical? Can you be a bit more explicit in your example?

Furthermore, are you suggesting Dallas Cowboys' freedom of speech (those that choose to kneel for the anthem) is being violated by Jerry Jones?

#78 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-08 03:10 PM | Reply

When you get shouted down by a crowd, that's the crowd exercising their first amendment rights.

Agreed, but when you shut someone down, you are prohibiting their speech. You have the right to say what you want, but not to stop someone from speaking.

P.S. My wife would be totally creeped out to find that Righto and I are the same person, since she went to school with him.

#79 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2018-08-08 03:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

If the speaker wasn't a bitch he would still speak. If he speaker wasn't a hatemonger, the public would't be so against their speech. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, but American conservatives are the most self-victimizing people in the world; so here you are crying about it.

#76 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Thanks for proving my point - so long as the speaker holds views that the mob (you) disagree with, it's cool to shout them down and get violent in order to shut them up.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 03:10 PM | Reply

#77 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

True, I seem to remember the Tea Party movement employing similar tactics against congressman at town hall meetings.

Minimal conservative outrage commenced.

#81 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-08 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Read Donner's post. Just because rightwingers have no conviction does not mean free speech was violated; it just means rightwingers are p****es, which explains how trump grabbed them all so easily.

#73 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

"The protesters then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and trying to prevent it from leaving campus," he said. "At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.

"During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger's hair and twisted her neck," Burger continued. "She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace."


Yeah, I guess liberal professor Allison Stanger has no conviction. Dumb bitch got what she deserved, right Jones?

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 03:14 PM | Reply

Furthermore, are you suggesting Dallas Cowboys' freedom of speech (those that choose to kneel for the anthem) is being violated by Jerry Jones?

#78 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2018-08-08 03:10 PM

As a matter of fact, that is part of the problem that the NFL faced with the kneeling protests-they couldn't ban them because of the 1st Amendment, so they had to look for ways to allow the players to express themselves in other ways.

The NHL has an explicit rule that players have to stand during anthems, that rule came about because both US and Canada anthems were regularly played so they made it mandatory that players stand through both. The NFL had no such rule, which put them in the cross-hairs for 1st Amendment violations if they banned players from kneeling.

#83 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 03:14 PM | Reply

P.S. My wife would be totally creeped out to find that Righto and I are the same person, since she went to school with him.

LOL, tell her I said hello and that it was good to see her at Kamala's fundraiser.

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 03:16 PM | Reply

Looks like comrades Jeffry and Nulli are working OT today peddling their propaganda and --------! I didn't know Vlad paid overtime? Policy change?

#85 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-08-08 03:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#82 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Interesting but anecdotal. Was that at Berkeley where the right-wingers go and incite violence?

#86 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 03:18 PM | Reply

Thanks for proving my point - so long as the speaker holds views that the mob (you) disagree with, it's cool to shout them down and get violent in order to shut them up.

#80 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Welcome to the paradox of tolerance. I fully support violence to suppress nazism and similar ideologies if that is what it takes. At least you finally gave up on the ludicrous claim that free speech is being inhibited.

#87 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 03:20 PM | Reply

True, I seem to remember the Tea Party movement employing similar tactics against congressman at town hall meetings.
Minimal conservative outrage commenced.

#81 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

The differences far outweigh the similarities.

First off, the speaker invited the participants, not the other way around.

Secondly, a town hall is an open discussion, a direct engagement between the politician and his constituents. A campus speaker typically delivers a prepared speech that is followed by a Q&A at the end.

Thirdly, this is a politician engaging directly with those whom he was elected to represent. Things are going to sometimes get testy and loud in this scenario.

Lastly, it's one thing to yell for a couple of seconds out of emotion. It's quite another to cause so much disruption that the entire venue has to be shut down. If a town hall meeting were being shut down due to hecklers causing that much disruption, you'd hear condemnation for it. If politicians were being assaulted when they were trying to leave (after the venue had already been shut down) you would certainly hear condemnation of it.

Yet, here we have Dr Jones and Snoofy claiming that assault is free speech.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--I fully support violence to suppress nazism

How about communists and anarchists, i.e., antifa?

#89 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-I fully support violence to suppress nazism and similar ideologies if that is what it takes

can you give us an example of "Nazism" where you would support violence to suppress?

#90 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 03:23 PM | Reply

"Yet, here we have Dr Jones and Snoofy claiming that assault is free speech."

to be clear, physical assault.

#91 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 03:24 PM | Reply

#90 | POSTED BY EBERLY

When nazis in Charlottesville started beating people in the head with locks, I think it is okay to suppress them with defensive violence.

#92 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 03:24 PM | Reply

I fully support violence to suppress nazism and similar ideologies if that is what it takes....

#87 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

"Similar ideologies"? Like what? Opposing abortion on moral grounds? Advocating for a Constitutionally limited federal government? Opposing single payer healthcare? Not voting Democrat?

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 03:25 PM | Reply

Yet, here we have Dr Jones and Snoofy claiming that assault is free speech.

#88 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Nice red herring. I never claimed anything like that. Stop making yourselves the victims in everything. You spew hate and when people disagree and legally assemble to oppose you; that is not assault.

#91; Fighting violence with violence is not assault you moron; its defense. There are laws that protect defensive actions.

Christ you people will do anything to defend nazis and apparently you'll say anything to reduce the 1st amendment.

#94 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 03:28 PM | Reply

-When nazis in Charlottesville started beating people in the head with locks, I think it is okay to suppress them with defensive violence.

That's not a good example. who cares if they are Nazis? If they are conducting violence then of course it's okay to suppress them with defensive violence.

If it were a group of monks that got drunk and went off on others with violence, they'd need to be stopped.

That's not what you are getting at, is it?

You specifically mentioned "Nazism and similar ideology" and suppressing that with violence.

If you meant to stop someone being violent with violence then you're not making a worthwhile point. Rather, an obvious one.

Now, why don't you tell what you really want... ... .

#95 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Similar ideologies"? Like what? Opposing abortion on moral grounds? Advocating for a Constitutionally limited federal government? Opposing single payer healthcare? Not voting Democrat?

#93 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Locking kids in cages. No due process or habeus corpus for certain groups. Religion in government. Censorship of media (the literal topic of this thread), etc. etc. etc.

I guess if you don't understand what ideologies are similar to nazism, it makes it less shocking that you spend so much energy defending nazism.

#96 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 03:30 PM | Reply

"I guess if you don't understand what ideologies are similar to Nazism"

Before you accuse anyone of not understanding that, you first need to display something that tells us YOU understand what ideologies are similar to nazisim.

#97 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 03:31 PM | Reply

#92

How about when Antifa in Berkeley started beating people in the head with rocks and sticks? Was that okay by your standards?

#98 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 03:32 PM | Reply

You see, the terms "Nazi" and "Nazism" are thrown around so much, it's hard to know what really represents Nazism.

How does one recognize an ideology similar to Nazism? understand, very very very people really know much about actual Nazism....hell, I'm not even sure self-admitted Nazis understand it.

#99 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 03:36 PM | Reply

Locking kids in cages. No due process or habeus corpus for certain groups. Religion in government. Censorship of media (the literal topic of this thread), etc. etc. etc.

Sounds like Communism and Anarchy to me.

#100 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 03:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#91; Fighting violence with violence is not assault you moron; its defense. There are laws that protect defensive actions.
Christ you people will do anything to defend nazis and apparently you'll say anything to reduce the 1st amendment.

#94 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

You only have yourself to blame. Read this again:

I fully support violence to suppress nazism and similar ideologies if that is what it takes.

There was nothing in this comment that can even be construed as "defensive violence".

Your #92 and #94 bring some desperately needed clarification.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 03:37 PM | Reply

Communism?

Weird.

Sounds like the United States of America under President Donald J. Trump to normal people.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You see, the terms "Nazi" and "Nazism" are thrown around so much, it's hard to know what really represents Nazism.

#99 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Actually, it isn't. We all know what happened with the Holocaust. We also know about the killing fields, the Communist gulags, etc.

Those were all atrocities on such a grand scale that the individual and collective suffering and death and the scope of it is almost beyond comprehension. But it happened.

To equate someone like Heather MacDonald or Ben Shapiro to Nazi's is the height of absurdity.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"So, if a college group rents a lecture hall and invites an individual to speak on a given topic at a given date and time it's totally cool for "protestors" to shut down the venue
#72 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Do you even realize you moved the goalposts from claiming heckling is a "violation of the First Amendment" to asking if heckling is "totally cool?"

I bet you don't.

Work on that.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I never claimed that heckling is a 1st Amendment violation.

If I did it was poor articulation on my part.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 03:49 PM | Reply

"To equate someone like Heather MacDonald or Ben Shapiro to Nazi's."

Do George Soros.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 03:56 PM | Reply

Y'all are dancing around "heckler's veto." Here's Eugene Volokh's summary of a 2015 en banc Sixth Circuit decision involving that issue. www.washingtonpost.com

Wayne County, however, through its Deputy Chiefs and Corporation Counsel, effectuated a constitutionally impermissible heckler's veto by allowing an angry mob of riotous adolescents to dictate what religious beliefs and opinions could and could not be expressed. This, the Constitution simply does not allow ... .

#107 | Posted by et_al at 2018-08-08 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Wayne County"

That case involves violence.

We're not saying throwing bottles at speakers you disagree with is free speech, Et_Al.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 04:04 PM | Reply

103

I totally get what you are saying but I'm trying to keep an open mind and let folks like Jones broaden the definition of Nazism a little past the Holocaust and have it include things much less tragic and severe.

#109 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 04:05 PM | Reply

"Yet, here we have Dr Jones and Snoofy claiming that assault is free speech.
#88 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Where did I claim that?

Do you mean "verbal assault" as in "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?"

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 04:10 PM | Reply

Sounds like the United States of America under President Donald J. Trump to normal people.

I don't disagree.

#111 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Republicans polled also seem to take issue with the media in general, with 48 percent agreeing that the news media is "the enemy of the American people."

Any Republicans here want to let us know the news media is the enemy of the American people?

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 04:14 PM | Reply

Any Republicans here want to let us know the news media is the enemy of the American people?

#112 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Nope. I think that is a horrible thing to say. In spite of their extreme biases and occasional unprofessional behavior, the news media perform a critical function in this country. They can, and should, be better. But I'd take our flawed news media any day over no news media at all.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We're not saying throwing bottles at speakers you disagree with is free speech, Et_Al.

#108 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That's how you came across. Regardless, thank you for the clarification.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 04:18 PM | Reply

"Yet, here we have Dr Jones and Snoofy claiming that assault is free speech."

to be clear, physical assault.
#91 | POSTED BY EBERLY"

^
Eberly can't get off until he accuses me of swinging my purse at someone.

Happy to help, little buddy!

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 04:19 PM | Reply

"That's how you came across."

That's how you *want* me to come across.
I never mentioned violence, much less condoned it.
You're hearing what you want to hear.

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Any Republicans here want to let us know the news media is the enemy of the American people?
#112 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yeah, I haven't quite figured that one out yet.

#117 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-08 04:23 PM | Reply

He got the presidency he campaigned on.

He called Hillary a liar and now he is being called out on all his lies.
He brought out Bill's dalliances and now his wife has to be married to him in public... along with every whore he's had the pleasure to know
He blathered on about Clinton Foundation and now every nickel of every transaction between him and any Russian is under scrutiny.
He called Hillary a crook and now his crooked little empire is being exposed for the world to see.
He said Mexico would pay for the wall... the Dems are going to hold him to it.
Putin played him for a bitch
Kim indulged the old fart.

Trumplethinsskin is circling the drain.

So Sad

#118 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2018-08-08 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

That's how you *want* me to come across.
I never mentioned violence, much less condoned it.
You're hearing what you want to hear.

#116 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I don't care *how* you come across.

Bottom line is I understood your position differently than you intended. You offered clarification and now I understand what you are saying.

Which is why I thanked you.

Let's move on.

#119 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 04:27 PM | Reply

We're not saying throwing bottles at speakers you disagree with is free speech, Et_Al.

You forgot about the mouse in your pocket.

I fully support violence to suppress nazism and similar ideologies if that is what it takes.
#87 | Posted by IndianaJones
I was simply providing a frame of reference rather engage in the conversation.

#120 | Posted by et_al at 2018-08-08 04:27 PM | Reply

That's how you *want* me to come across.
I never mentioned violence, much less condoned it.
You're hearing what you want to hear.

#116 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-08-08 04:21 PM

LMAO, looks like Snoofy is getting a taste of his own medicine and doesn't like it one bit.

#121 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 04:28 PM | Reply

what happened to Indianajones? He supported violence and then took off......

#122 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 04:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I totally get what you are saying but I'm trying to keep an open mind and let folks like Jones broaden the definition of Nazism a little past the Holocaust and have it include things much less tragic and severe.

#109 | POSTED BY EBERLY

The reason I oppose that is it diminishes history. We should never lose sight of what happened and to just call anyone with whom you disagree with a Nazi is not only slanderous, but it waters down a term that has no business being watered down.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 04:30 PM | Reply

#118

Wow, first time I have ever (mostly) agreed with something that DARistrite has posted.

#124 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 04:30 PM | Reply

what happened to Indianajones? He supported violence and then took off......

#122 | POSTED BY EBERLY

He probably figured out where I live and he and his antifa buddies are on their way over to throw a molotov cocktail at my house.

#125 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 04:31 PM | Reply

what happened to Indianajones? He supported violence and then took off......

He's getting psyched up for his next Antifa rally

#126 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 04:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Wow, first time I have ever (mostly) agreed with something that DARistrite has posted.

#124 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I missed it initially. Thanks for drawing attention to it. I gave Trite's post a NW.

#127 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 04:33 PM | Reply

#127

So did I, unfortunately for the Left I don't think Donnie Little Hands is going anywhere anytime soon, but otherwise she was spot on.

#128 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 04:35 PM | Reply

I don't know if pelting Nazis with rocks is the answer

But it certainly a start

#129 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-08 04:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

unfortunately for the Left I don't think Donnie Little Hands is going anywhere anytime soon, but otherwise she was spot on.
#128 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Are you suggesting that Donnie Little Hands presence as POTUS as a positive (or null) effect upon you?

#130 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-08 04:42 PM | Reply

How about when Antifa in Berkeley started beating people in the head with rocks and sticks? Was that okay by your standards?

#98 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

That was not okay but was also proven to be an insurgent group of right wingers; not antifa. They have a history of inciting violence at Berkeley

#131 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 04:42 PM | Reply

The amount of mental gymnastics you people go through to make defending against right wing violence seem bad is astounding. If you put half that energy into looking at America rationally, you wouldn't support nazis. And yet here we are; a thread full of "American" conservatives supporting nazis.

#132 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 04:45 PM | Reply

--That was not okay but was also proven to be an insurgent group of right wingers; not antifa.

Liar.

#133 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 04:49 PM | Reply

There was nothing in this comment that can even be construed as "defensive violence".
Your #92 and #94 bring some desperately needed clarification.
#101 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I guess when you are okay with nazis, its easy to ignore their calls for violence.

#134 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 04:55 PM | Reply

"You have the right to say what you want, but not to stop someone from speaking."

You definitely have the right to stop someone from speaking, provided you don't break any laws.

Perhaps, as a sock-puppet lawyer, you know that when she bangs the gavel and sats "order in the court" it stops people speaking.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 04:58 PM | Reply

#133 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Just because FOX news has you convinced Antifa is the boogeyman, does not mean right wing anarchists flooding into Berkeley and starting a riot was Antifa.

#136 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 04:59 PM | Reply

And yet here we are; a thread full of "American" conservatives supporting nazis.

#132 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 04:45 PM | Reply

How would an application of Occam's Razor explain this?

#137 | Posted by Zed at 2018-08-08 04:59 PM | Reply

-I guess when you are okay with nazis, its easy to ignore their calls for violence.

Are you okay with church ladies when they call for violence?

#138 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 05:01 PM | Reply

I think it's bad manners to shout a speaker down. I don't think it ought be done. I would like to know how many individual posters here think Trump should shut down media outlets when they "behave badly"?

#139 | Posted by Zed at 2018-08-08 05:01 PM | Reply

Yes, Nazis come here. They don't like that name, yet. Eventually they be told that it's OK to like it and then like it very much.

#140 | Posted by Zed at 2018-08-08 05:03 PM | Reply

That was not okay but was also proven to be an insurgent group of right wingers; not antifa.

Uhhhh, no. Let me introduce you to something called Google, you should consult it before you attempt to make baldfaced lies:

Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in ...
www.washingtonpost.com
Aug 28, 2017 - All told, the Associated Press reported at least five individuals were antifa ... barreled into a protest Sunday afternoon in Berkeley's Martin Luther King ...

2017 Berkeley protests - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The 2017 Berkeley protests refer to a series of protests and clashes between organized groups ... The majority of the protesters were regular right wing people who wanted to listen to conservatives or peaceful ..... After the August events, Jesse Arreguin, the mayor of Berkeley, suggested classifying the city's Antifa as a gang.

Violence by far-left protesters in Berkeley sparks alarm
www.latimes.com
Aug 28, 2017 - All eyes turned to Berkeley after a day of large-scale protests, and ... Those activists are sometimes referred to as "antifa," a name taken by ...

Is 'antifa' a gang? Why Berkeley protests gave the group a bad name ...
www.sandiegouniontribune.com
Aug 30, 2017 - After violent protests in Berkeley, California, the city's mayor wants to declare ... And while "antifa" members have lately been seen at protests ...

Alt-right, counter-protestors gather in Berkeley - The Mercury News
www.mercurynews.com
3 days ago - Alt-right demonstrators, antifa clash in Berkeley ... Anti-fascist protesters surrounded and shouted down the outnumbered .... in riot gear fired flash-bang grenades at counter-protesters who were throwing objects ...

Antifa members in Berkeley smash windows of US Marine Corps ...
www.foxnews.com
2 days ago - An Antifa protest in Berkeley turned violent Sunday when one ... No police were around as the black bloc traveled down the street, and a ...

Pretty simple, you should try it sometime.

#141 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 05:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#141 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER None of those prove the 100 or so anarchists that sprung passed police were part of Antifa, but campus police accounts said they certainly showed up to specifically cause violence. But FOX has people like you so terrified of Antifa that the assumption easily spread.

How would an application of Occam's Razor explain this?
#137 | POSTED BY ZED

They love blindly defending "their side" more than they love US values.

#142 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 05:22 PM | Reply

#138 | POSTED BY EBERLY Of course not, I don't have fluid and fleeting morals like yourself.

#143 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 05:23 PM | Reply

--does not mean right wing anarchists flooding into Berkeley and starting a riot was Antifa.not mean right wing anarchists

Liar. Antifa is just the leftwing Black Bloc--who you never heard of despite being around since the 90s.

#144 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-08 05:23 PM | Reply

"If a town hall meeting were being shut down due to hecklers causing that much disruption, you'd hear condemnation for it."

^
Is this why you don't condemn Tasering the "Don't Tase me, bro!" bro?

#145 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 05:24 PM | Reply

But FOX has people like you so terrified of Antifa that the assumption easily spread.

Gee, I didn't realize that Fox also had the WashPo, AP, Reuters, NYT, LAT, Mercury News, SD Tribune all so terrified that they all reported that it was Antifa who rioted the day after the Berkeley riots happened on August 27, 2017.

#146 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 05:25 PM | Reply

It would be unamerican to force a news organization to cease distribution of the news.

Real Americans get this.

Fake ones attempt to downplay, distract from, and diminish the gravity of what the GOP wants.

#147 | Posted by Tor at 2018-08-08 05:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

P.S. My wife would be totally creeped out to find that Righto and I are the same person, since she went to school with him.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

Was that @ Trump University or BecKKK U?

#148 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-08-08 05:29 PM | Reply

It would be unamerican to force a news organization to cease distribution of the news.
Real Americans get this.

Agree 100%

But it is just as unamerican to shut down a speaker because you disagree with what they say...they still have a right to say it, you don't have a right to shout them down or turn violent to stop them from speaking.

#149 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 05:30 PM | Reply

It would be unamerican to force a news organization to cease distribution of the news.
Real Americans get this.
Fake ones attempt to downplay, distract from, and diminish the gravity of what the GOP wants.

#147 | POSTED BY TOR

A lot of "unpatriotic Americans" in this thread, comrades Jeffry, Elerby, FakeLawyer/Joe Dirt to name a few..... **** America, as long as their side wins, they are cool with it!

#150 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-08-08 05:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-#138 | POSTED BY EBERLY Of course not, I don't have fluid and fleeting morals like yourself.

then why make a distinction as to who is calling for violence?

why in the hell does it matter?

It doesn't matter to me who is calling for violence or actually inciting and engaging in violence....they need to be shut down.

But I can see why you post this drivel....it's not the violence that bothers you, jones. It's the ideology.

You don't have a problem with violence or even calls for violence. You have a problem with who is engaging in it or inciting it.

#151 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 05:34 PM | Reply

-Yes, Nazis come here.

where? to the retort?

#152 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 05:38 PM | Reply

-A lot of "unpatriotic Americans" in this thread

you poor thing. you aren't even reading what's being written here.

Perhaps that's because it's too hard for you.

Where am I suggesting anybody get away with anything they shouldn't?

#153 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 05:40 PM | Reply

When Obama gave the fox fascists the cold shoulder it was awesome.

All real Americans get how this is far from ordering foxnews shutdown.

#154 | Posted by Tor at 2018-08-08 05:42 PM | Reply

Are you suggesting that Donnie Little Hands presence as POTUS as a positive (or null) effect upon you?

#130 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2018-08-08 04:42 PM

I'm just being realistic, the only way Trump leaves office before 2024, as it stands right now, is if he decides not to run or loses in the General Election.

#155 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 05:44 PM | Reply

If someone at a social situation starts spewing garbage, I don't shout them down. I enact an Irish Goodbye.

#156 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2018-08-08 06:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"you don't have a right to shout them down"

Says who?

#157 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-08 06:19 PM | Reply

"It doesn't matter to me who is calling for violence or actually inciting and engaging in violence....they need to be shut down."

"they need to be shut down."

^
Look everybody a call for violence!

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 06:26 PM | Reply

And if it's the government doing the shutting down...

Look everybody a call for censorship!

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 06:27 PM | Reply

Where am I suggesting anybody get away with anything they shouldn't?

#153 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You aren't literally suggesting it, but you've spent a whole lot of effort deflecting from righwingers being okay with the gutting of the free press in order to show that the left is actually the ones reducing 1a.

#138 | POSTED BY EBERLY Of course not, I don't have fluid and fleeting morals like yourself.
then why make a distinction as to who is calling for violence?
why in the hell does it matter?
It doesn't matter to me who is calling for violence or actually inciting and engaging in violence....they need to be shut down.
But I can see why you post this drivel....it's not the violence that bothers you, jones. It's the ideology.
You don't have a problem with violence or even calls for violence. You have a problem with who is engaging in it or inciting it.
#151 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Reading comprehension has never been your strong suite. I spoke of the nazis first, not the violence. I had to add "violence" because people like yourself and Jeffj seem to forget that violence is an inherent part of the "speech" that was being protested. This is a big part of the problem with conservatives; your tunnel vision makes it impossible for you to connect even the simplest set of dots.

#160 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 06:34 PM | Reply

Numerous. And it seems to be a growing trend.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ

They get a lot of internet play.

But are still rare occurrences.

#161 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-08 06:39 PM | Reply

But it is just as unamerican to shut down a speaker because you disagree with what they say...they still have a right to say it, you don't have a right to shout them down or turn violent to stop them from speaking.
#149 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Jesus H Christ!

You can't seriously be that obtuse. There is a difference between being shut down and stepping down and your conservative heroes are guilty of the latter.

Let me sum up this thread;

Headline: GOP supports trump attack on free speech.
Rightwingers: What about protesters? They're the real attack on free speech?
Reality: Protesting is their free speech.
The DR rightwing is so hyper-focused on finding a leftwing equivalence to justify their unAmerican policies that they, once again, fail to condemn something that should in no way be partisan. Its pathetic and a disgrace to the United States.

#162 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 06:40 PM | Reply

If anything, the authoritarian left is stronger than ever.

#37 | Posted by nullifidian

No it isn't, you're just a whinier, puling little bitch more than ever.

#163 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-08 06:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"you don't have a right to shout them down"
Says who?

#157 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2018-08-08 06:19

The Sixth Circuit, in BIBLE BELIEVERS, et. al v. WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, et. al, ; BENNY N. NAPOLEON, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit, No. 2:12-cv-14236 -- Patrick J. Duggan, District Judge.

This case calls on us to confirm the boundaries of free speech protections in relation to angry, hostile, or violent crowds that seek to silence a speaker with whom the crowd disagrees. Set against the constitutional right to freedom of speech, we must balance the state's interest in insuring public safety and preventing breaches of the peace.

The scenario presented by this case, known as the "heckler's veto," occurs when police silence a speaker to appease the crowd and stave off a potentially violent altercation. The particular facts of this case involve a group of self-described Christian evangelists preaching hate and denigration to a crowd of Muslims, some of whom responded with threats of violence. The police thereafter removed the evangelists to restore the peace.

...

In this opinion we reaffirm the comprehensive boundaries of the First Amendment's free speech protection, which envelopes all manner of speech, even when that speech is loathsome in its intolerance, designed to cause offense, and, as a result of such offense, arouses violent retaliation.

The First Amendment offers sweeping protection that allows all manner of speech to enter the marketplace of ideas. This protection applies to loathsome and unpopular speech with the same force as it does to speech that is celebrated and widely accepted. The protection would be unnecessary if it only served to safeguard the majority views. In fact, it is the minority view, including expressive behavior that is deemed distasteful and highly offensive to the vast majority of people, that most often needs protection under the First Amendment.

...

Punishing, removing, or by other means silencing a speaker due to crowd hostility will seldom, if ever, constitute the least restrictive means available to serve a legitimate government purpose. A review of Supreme Court precedent firmly establishes that the First Amendment does not countenance a heckler's veto. [The court discusses Supreme Court cases from Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949), to Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), Cox v. Louisiana (1965), Gregory v. City of Chicago (1969), as well as some Sixth Circuit cases, and concludes:]

The Supreme Court, in Cantwell, Terminiello, Edwards, Cox, and Gregory, has repeatedly affirmed the principle that "constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion or exercise." Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 535 (1963) (citations omitted). If the speaker's message does not fall into one of the recognized categories of unprotected speech, the message does not lose its protection under the First Amendment due to the lawless reaction of those who hear it. Simply stated, the First Amendment does not permit a heckler's veto ... .

That's who.

#164 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 06:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not even going to bother reading this entire thread because it's just stupid wrapped stupid with stupid filling.

Jesus ---- Christ, guys.

Half of one of the major parties things a POTUS should be able to squelch critical media sources and the only response you can muster is "but [insert false equivalence here] does it toooooo" *digs knuckles into eyes*. Grow the f--- up. Idiots.

#165 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-08 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There is a difference between being shut down and stepping down and your conservative heroes are guilty of the latter.

Let me repeat what the Sixth Circuit said in Bible Believers: "Simply stated, the First Amendment does not permit a heckler's veto."

#166 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 06:48 PM | Reply

#165

*unknots JPW's Manties, hands them back*

#167 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 06:49 PM | Reply

"they still have a right to say it, you don't have a right to shout them down"

^
You'd have to be a right-winger to not see the double standard...

#168 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 06:49 PM | Reply

*unknots JPW's Manties, hands them back*

#167 | Posted by Rightocenter

Joins the long DR line of idiots.

Congrats!

#169 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-08 06:49 PM | Reply

"Simply stated, the First Amendment does not permit a heckler's veto."

^
Because in that case, Et_CrossCheck, "heckling" meant "throwing bottles."

Go be disingenuous somewhere else.

#170 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 06:51 PM | Reply

"the message does not lose its protection under the First Amendment due to the lawless reaction of those who hear it."

Shouting down a speaker is a lawless reaction?

What law is being abrogated?

#171 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 06:55 PM | Reply

Let me repeat what the Sixth Circuit said in Bible Believers: "Simply stated, the First Amendment does not permit a heckler's veto."

#166 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-08-08 06:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You are so stupid, it is actually comical. Here's a hint, alleged lawyer: a heckler's veto isn't shouting someone down.

#172 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-08 07:02 PM | Reply

160

You poor slob. You have to manufacture a position and then assign it to me.

There's is literally no other way you can converse with anybody

I didn't deflect for anybody and you posted zero evidence of it.

The only thing I did was question WTF you were trying to say and you still haven't been honest about it.

And it's obvious why.

#173 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 07:19 PM | Reply

Looks like Goofy and Boyduhh need to read the opinion, but if they did that would destroy The Narrative:

The freedom to espouse sincerely held religious, political, or philosophical beliefs, especially in the face of hostile opposition, is too important to our democratic institution for it to be abridged simply due to the hostility of reactionary listeners who may be offended by a speaker's message. If the mere possibility of violence were allowed to dictate whether our views, when spoken aloud, are safeguarded by the Constitution, surely the myriad views that animate our discourse would be reduced to the "standardization of ideas ... by ... [the] dominant political or community groups." Democracy cannot survive such a deplorable result.

#174 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 07:24 PM | Reply

#174

Look at this idiot double down!!!

Did you fish your law degree out of a box of breakfast cereal, you unbelievable moron? Inquiring mind want to know!

#175 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-08 07:27 PM | Reply

Shouting down a speaker is a lawless reaction?

According to the Sixth Circuit, yes (and they did not base their opinion on the bottles and garbage that was thrown at some point).

What law is being abrogated?

Depends on the jurisdiction, in Wayne County it was disturbing the peace.

#176 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 07:29 PM | Reply

Sorry that the Sixth Circuit uses words that are too big for you Boyduhh, sound them out slowly and Google them if necessary.

#177 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 07:31 PM | Reply

Sorry that the Sixth Circuit uses words that are too big for you Boyduhh, sound them out slowly and Google them if necessary.

#177 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-08-08 07:31 PM | FLAG:

Tripled down! Take your own advice you positively cartoonish buffoon.

See if you can spot the flaw in what you've been saying. I already gave you a nice, big hint....

#178 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-08 07:33 PM | Reply

If I wrote a sitcom, with Rightostupid as a recurring character, people would complain he is too stupid to be believable.

#179 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-08 07:35 PM | Reply

"What law is being abrogated?

Depends on the jurisdiction, in Wayne County it was disturbing the peace."

In Wayne County they were throwing bottles.

That was what was lawless.

Not throwing their voices.

Why the constant lying, RightOCenter? Is it pathological? Do us a favor, take an Ambien and see if you say racist stuff, that's a common side effect for people like you.

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 07:39 PM | Reply

Translation:

Never go in on a Sicilian when death is on the line! HAHAHAHAHA *plop*

#179 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

#181 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-08 07:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Righttoputin's ramblings make more sense in their original russian form.

#182 | Posted by Tor at 2018-08-08 07:40 PM | Reply

Fact: Richard Nixon had a dog named Checkers. That dog knew more about constitutional law than Rightostupid.

#183 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-08 07:41 PM | Reply

Come on Rightostupid... you can do it! Spot your mistake.

#184 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-08 07:44 PM | Reply

#173 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I'm sorry you needed clarification that nazis are bad. My mistake for assuming you knew that. From now one I will always treat you as entirely ignorant since that appears to be the case.

But there really is no need for you to lie and claim I've changed or altered my position. But of course you would claim that after literally assigning me to a position I do not hold; that proactive violence is acceptable. I very clearly stated violence is sometimes needed. That you construed that to starting with violence is strawman at best and a projection at worst.

#185 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 07:59 PM | Reply

The only thing I did was question WTF you were trying to say and you still haven't been honest about it.
And it's obvious why.
#173 | POSTED BY EBERLY

1, I did clarify.

2, How can you both not know what I was trying to say and have what I am trying to say be obvious?

You're just talking out of your ass, doubling down as usual.

#186 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-08 08:01 PM | Reply

"I'm sorry you needed clarification that nazis are bad. My mistake for assuming you knew that."

Whoa, whoa! You are going way too fast for poor Ebb! Maybe you could draw him a diagram...

#187 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-08 08:03 PM | Reply

Dr Jones,

I already pointed out why your position was misconstrued, and not only by me.

Any time I have multiple people misconstruing what I am trying to convey I take a step back and reread what I posted to see if I articulated poorly. You didn't do that but it was somewhat clear in a couple of subsequent posts that you weren't conveying exactly what I thought you were conveying. Qualifying statements and clarifying statements go a long way toward others understanding your POV.

#188 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 08:13 PM | Reply

"Any time I have multiple people misconstruing what I am trying to convey.... it turns out they aren't because I am an obvious Nazi Coddling hack."

-Jeffylube

#189 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-08 08:29 PM | Reply

Come on, Dirk.

You need to branch out and mix it up more. Your trolling is losing its effectiveness.

#190 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 08:40 PM | Reply

190

All that stain can do is troll you.

#191 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 09:56 PM | Reply

"..after literally assigning me to a position I do not hold;"

And that bothers you?

Hmmmm....who would have thought?

#192 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-08 10:06 PM | Reply

"..after literally assigning me to a position I do not hold;"

Like this one,

"Yet, here we have Dr Jones and Snoofy claiming that assault is free speech."
to be clear, physical assault.
#91 | POSTED BY EBERLY"

#193 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 10:12 PM | Reply

Like this one,

That was a re-statement of your position based upon how you were coming across up to that point.

You subsequently clarified, and if you remember, I acknowledged your clarification, took you at your word and suggested we move on.

The reason you are getting so much grief over complaining about having a position falsely assigned to you is it's something you do with annoying frequency.

It displays a lack of self-awareness that is, well....

#194 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-08 10:38 PM | Reply

"The reason you are getting so much grief over complaining about having a position falsely assigned to you"

False position.

I don't feel like I'm getting any more grief than usual.

#195 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 11:45 PM | Reply

"That was a re-statement of your position based upon how you were coming across up to that point."

That's how I feel about all the false positions I assign people too!

Though, there are posters who don't ever take positions, merely attack the position of those bold enough to take a stand.

It's fine to assign positions to them. If they don't like it, they can stop weaseling and step up. Otherwise ------.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 11:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Spreading lies isn't free speech. Otherwise fraud would be legal.

#197 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-08-09 11:57 AM | Reply

#188 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
I like how you use the fact that I clarified myself in later posts to tell me that I need to clarify my posts.

It isn't my fault you cons need things repeated fifty times before it sticks.

That was a re-statement of your position based upon how you were coming across up to that point.
#194 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Since this happens to you all the time Jeff, its clearly more a problem with your reception than it is with our communication.

#198 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-09 12:19 PM | Reply

Wow, Eberly openly defending Nazi's and White Knighting for them, why am I not surprised? .....and then he plays the victim card like the little snowflake that he is when called out on it.

What a pathetic excuse for a human being.

#199 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-08-09 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Openly defending nazis?

No way and there is zero evidence of that.

All I'm really doing is being harassed by trailer trash here.

Now, I can step into your double wide and slap you around or you can go play with yourself elsewhere, Abortionbreath.

#200 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-09 01:22 PM | Reply

EBB really wants Nazis to have a fair shake. He cares a lot about it.

#201 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 01:31 PM | Reply

I know

how does one end up arguing in defense of Nazis?

That is your modern GOP in a nutshell

#202 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-09 01:35 PM | Reply

This might explain some of them here on the DR

According to a new study from the Institute for Family Studies, two traits in particular are most likely to make white nationalism appealing to white men: They have low incomes and they have been divorced. In fact, the study found that "a divorced respondent was 1.78 times as likely to score high" on an index of white nationalist sympathies compared to someone who has never been married.

#203 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-09 01:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Anyone defending the notion of the government having the authority to shut down the free press is disrespecting what this nation stands for and what a lifetime of Americans fought for.

The freedom to mock, question and ridicule the president is part of what makes America great.

Trump's ego isn't a good enough reason to destroy one of America's greatest pilliars. Freedom of speech and freedom of press supersede Republican petulance.

Republicans are doing their best to turn our nation into a dictatorship.

Sometimes. I wonder how much better America would have been had the south been allowed to secede.

#204 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-08-09 02:09 PM | Reply

Shouting down a speaker is a lawless reaction?

According to the Sixth Circuit, yes

Talk about misreading a case. The Bible Believers court (and most courts considering the "heckler's veto") was addressing an act by police to shut down a protest in response to heckling and the danger it created. They did not hold that heckling was unconstitutional as you suggest. They held that police must first make bona fide efforts to protect a speaker from a hostile crowd by means less restrictive than removal due to safety concerns. That is how a heckler's veto operates - through police power - which is what brings it within the purview of the First Amendment through a state action.

I wondered why you were fishing around in the 6th Circuit of all places, and i'm guessing it's because you couldn't find any other authority that you could intentionally misconstrue to make your point.

#205 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-09 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Openly defending nazis?
No way and there is zero evidence of that.
All I'm really doing is being harassed by trailer trash here.
Now, I can step into your double wide and slap you around or you can go play with yourself elsewhere, Abortionbreath.

#200 | POSTED BY EBERLY

The evidence is your postings Cletus.

As for slapping things around, the only thing you've slap around is little Eberly between your legs, but you miss a lot since he's tiny.

Why don't you go play with your firearms so you can feel manly.

#206 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-08-09 03:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

According to a new study from the Institute for Family Studies, two traits in particular are most likely to make white nationalism appealing to white men: They have low incomes and they have been divorced. In fact, the study found that "a divorced respondent was 1.78 times as likely to score high" on an index of white nationalist sympathies compared to someone who has never been married.

#203 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

So you are saying that comrade Elerby has had more than one sister-wife?
Makes perfect sense!

#207 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-08-09 03:03 PM | Reply

#205

Looks like someone decided to put Rightostupid out of his misery after all.

#208 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 03:03 PM | Reply

I wondered why you were fishing around in the 6th Circuit of all places, and i'm guessing it's because you couldn't find any other authority that you could intentionally misconstrue to make your point.

#205 | Posted by JOE

good eye Joe...

I think lawyers have a habit of thinking the rest of us are too stupid to understand and interpret the Law for ourselves.

You know why I hire lawyers?

To fill out the required paperwork correctly.

#209 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-09 04:23 PM | Reply

They held that police must first make bona fide efforts to protect a speaker from a hostile crowd by means less restrictive than removal due to safety concerns.

That's correct, and direct to my point, the Sixth Circuit goes one step further in holding the WCSO civilly liable for not removing the "mob" instead the the speakers; read the conclusion at pg 39 of the opinion in conjunction with my 174:

From a constitutional standpoint, this should be an easy case to resolve. However, it is also easy to understand Dearborn's desire to host a joyous Festival celebrating the city's Arab heritage in an atmosphere that is free of hate and negative influences. But the answer to disagreeable speech is not violent retaliation by offended listeners or ratification of the heckler's veto through threat of arrest by the police. The adults who did not join in the assault on the Bible Believers knew that violence was not the answer; the parents who pulled their children away likewise recognized that the Bible Believers could simply be ignored; and a few adolescents, instead of hurling bottles, engaged in debate regarding the validity of the Bible Believers' message. Wayne County, however, through its Deputy Chiefs and Corporation Counsel, effectuated a constitutionally impermissible heckler's veto by allowing an angry mob of riotous adolescents to dictate what religious beliefs and opinions could and could not be expressed. This, the Constitution simply does not allow.

The "mob" in this case was comprised mostly of children and teenagers. The "violence," though not imaginary, involved little more than plastic bottle and garbage throwing. As evidenced in the video record, the WCSO's efforts to prevent this behavior were virtually non-existent. Instead, the officers largely ignored the lawless conduct of the crowd and directed what little attention they paid to the Bible Believers' situation -- prior to ejecting the group -- to quieting and then silencing their speech.

"Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea." Terminiello, 337 U.S. at 4. Excluding viewpoints and ideas from the marketplace damages us by occasioning the risk that we might subject ourselves to "tyrannies of governing majorities," Whitney, 274 U.S. at 376 (Brandeis, J., concurring), and thereby forestall "the advancement of truth, science, morality, and [the] arts," 1 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789, Letter to the Inhabitants of Quebec, 108 (Aug. 26, 1774). These are but a few of the reasons that the First Amendment is integral to the vitality and longevity of a free society. These are the reasons why we must accept our differences and allow our fellow citizens to express their views regardless of our distaste for what they have to say.

Forest, meet trees. Wayne County was found liable for exercising a Heckler's Veto on the Bible Believers rather than control the "mob" who was trying to shout them down. By stifling the speech rather than control the mob, the Wayne County Defendants had summary judgment in their favor reversed and then entered against them.

#210 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 04:26 PM | Reply

"control the "mob" who was trying to shout them down"

Oh I see.

Throwing bottles == shout them down.

#211 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-09 04:30 PM | Reply

#210

None of which translates to a heckler's veto being the same as shouting someone down....

#212 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 04:50 PM | Reply

the Sixth Circuit goes one step further in holding the WCSO civilly liable for not removing the "mob" instead the the speakers

...None of which supports the notion that "heckling" itself is unconstitutional; rather, the state action effectuating a heckler's veto is.

If you weren't claiming that shouting down a speaker is unconstitutional, i'd be surprised, but it sure looked that way from your #176.

#213 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-09 04:52 PM | Reply

"By stifling the speech rather than control the mob"

So you agree then that this case did not rule against the "mob" in this case but ruled against the Wayne County Sheriff's Office for stifling free speech.

Anyway I am ok with the Sheriff arresting the "mob". Good luck with that. That's gonna take a while.

And in the end if there is no one left in the audience they can spew all the hate speech they want.

...at that point...

I don't really care. Do U?

#214 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-09 04:56 PM | Reply

www.smithsonianmag.com

The police have a long history of NOT keeping the peace

#215 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-08-09 04:57 PM | Reply

If you weren't claiming that shouting down a speaker is unconstitutional, i'd be surprised, but it sure looked that way from your #176.

#213 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2018-08-09 04:52 PM

I wasn't, I was saying that pursuant to Gregory (as recently applied in Bible Believers), if violence is threatened, imminent or even a mere possibility, all steps must be taken to protect the speaker, including controlling the mob that is trying to stop the speech.

#216 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 05:06 PM | Reply

#216 What a stupid thing to say.
Violence is always a "possibility."

#217 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-09 05:14 PM | Reply

"I wasn't"

Liar. You said just that in 149 and brought up the case to "support" it in. 164.

#218 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 05:18 PM | Reply

Does this ruling mean that any organization, including government, is obliged to invite a controversial speaker of doing so will incite protest and hacking? No. Does it mean that heckling per se isn't allowed? No.

#219 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 05:26 PM | Reply

-As for slapping things around

just you.

for the record....I own no guns, married once, never divorced.

#220 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-09 06:11 PM | Reply

I wasn't

Your 176 makes very little sense then. Fair enough.

#221 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-09 06:13 PM | Reply

#220

And slap your wife and kids around, eh Ebb Early? Or is that just something you fantasize about online, along with ---- sniffing?

#222 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 06:17 PM | Reply

Boyd, honestly.....do you have a wife and kids?

Seriously?

#223 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-09 06:38 PM | Reply

#223

I'm not Boyd and I'm not the one who comes online and fantasizes about punching women in the genitalia (among other things).

#224 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 06:42 PM | Reply

Wife and kids?

#225 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-09 06:43 PM | Reply

Avoiding the issue. Not that I blame you. We've all gotten entirely too much insight into the workings of your psyche. By all means, tell us more about slapping people around.

#226 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 06:45 PM | Reply

I didn't bring up wife and kids.

You did.

Again, wife and kids?

#227 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-09 06:46 PM | Reply

I'm not the one who comes online and fantasizes about punching women in the genitalia (among other things).

#224 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2018-08-09 06:42 PM

No, but you are on the record of being in favor of Snoofy dehumanizing women who struggle while he chokes them, so there is that.

#228 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 06:47 PM | Reply

#227

Now why would I want to share personal details with someone of your violent disposition?

#229 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 06:48 PM | Reply

No, but you are on the record of being in favor of Snoofy dehumanizing women who struggle while he chokes them, so there is that.

#228 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-08-09 06:47 PM | FLAG:

You've already lost that argument.

#230 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 06:49 PM | Reply

Because I asked.

#231 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-09 06:53 PM | Reply

You've already lost that argument.

#230 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2018-08-09 06:49 PM

Only in the little world between your ears, Boydirk, but that's okay, because everyone agrees with you in there...

#232 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 06:55 PM | Reply

Because I asked.
#231 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-08-09 06:53 PM | FLAG:

And you slap people around when you don't get what you ask for, right Ebb? Punch them in the genitalia perhaps?

#233 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 06:56 PM | Reply

Now why would I want to share personal details with someone of your violent disposition?

#229 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2018-08-09 06:48 PM

Translation:

Squire, you've slept with a lady...what's it like?

#234 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 06:57 PM | Reply

--someone of your violent disposition?

Eberly?! TFF. That guy gets along with everybody and I bet in his personal life as well. That's the advantage of not being a fanatical ideologue.

#235 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-09 06:59 PM | Reply

Squire, you've slept with a lady...what's it like?

#234 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-08-09 06:57 PM | FLAG:

Oh I can guess what it is like for Ebb... I imagine it involves ---- sniffing. You strike me as a Trumpian golden showers type, given the rain of scorn you get here every day, eh Rightoutofconstipationmedicine?

#236 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 07:00 PM | Reply

That's the advantage of not being a fanatical ideologue.

#235 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-08-09 06:59 PM | FLAG:

Yeah, the violence fantasies are positively charming; he is like Boaz with a scatology fetish.

#237 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 07:01 PM | Reply

"No, but you are on the record of being in favor of Snoofy dehumanizing women who struggle while he chokes them, so there is that.
#228 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER"

And you're not in favor of consent, RightOCenter??

#238 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-09 07:03 PM | Reply

"Now why would I want to share personal details....."

Could it be because those details are embarrassing and juicy?

Worthy of Rikki Lake perhaps?

#239 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-09 07:04 PM | Reply

And you're not in favor of consent, RightOCenter??

#238 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-08-09 07:03 PM | FLAG:

Worse, he doesn't understand it. Downright scary.

#240 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 07:04 PM | Reply

#239

Look at this one trying to change the subject.

#241 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 07:05 PM | Reply

And you're not in favor of consent, RightOCenter??

#238 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-08-09 07:03 PM | FLAG:

Worse, he doesn't understand it. Downright scary.

#240 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2018-08-09 07:04 PM

Good to see that the Unsubs have no problem getting their creep on.

#242 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 07:27 PM | Reply

Good to see that the Unsubs have no problem getting their creep on.

#242 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-08-09 07:27 PM | FLAG:

Thanks for proving our point. Again.

#243 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 07:31 PM | Reply

#243

Shuffle along now, CocoChiefSamIamVilleMoses is waiting for you and Goofy to caboose his human centipede.

#244 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 07:45 PM | Reply

Republicans are working overtime to change the subject from their cultish desire to give Trump dictatorial powers.

#245 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-09 07:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#244

What a pathetic loser you are. Tell us more about the heckler's veto, idiot. Tell us about how it is somehow the same as shouting someone down. Hell, tell us how it even applies to the circumstances you and your fellow fascist coddling ------ whine about (the rescinding of invitations extended to inflammatory speakers).

Oh that's right... you can't do ANY of those things... because you are a moron.

#246 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 10:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort