• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Constitutionally Guaranteed Free Speech Or Seditious Conspiracy?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,486
3,597
126
Fail OP is Fail

The Designated area doesn't limit Free Speech elsewhere, it merely sets aside an area where People/Groups can go and Speak their Mind openly. It is an area where People will Know and Expect that Others will Speak freely on one thing or another, kinda like a Forum dedicated to Discussion. This designated area does not stifle Free Speech, it encourages Free Speech and likely will increase Free Speech.

Britain has a similar concept where People speak freely at a designated place. People not only utilize it, but others come to watch/listen to it.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
I kinda wonder if Sandorski has hit the nail on the head, no one in this country is denying the tea baggers the right to free speech, but when tea baggers assert the right to shout down any opposing viewpoints, that is quite another free speech issue.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
I kinda wonder if Sandorski has hit the nail on the head, no one in this country is denying the tea baggers the right to free speech, but when tea baggers assert the right to shout down any opposing viewpoints, that is quite another free speech issue.

It may be exactly as he says and I wouldn't be surprised in the least, but the tea bagger thing has been done to death considering that more violence has occured over the AZ immigration law by the left than they have. When they get proportional scorn over their actions then come back about the actions of the right, at least on that issue.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
If you google Monterey free speech zone you are led to a few links to the city parks commission.

From limited readings it seems that these areas were set up to contain protest groups and others within the city parks.

Seems like a decent compromise. Crazy left wing groups like code pink still get to protest, and the other people of the city still get to visit their park without being over run by the protestors.

Let's not forget that the courts have ruled many times that the right to free speech is not absolute and that the government can place some restrictions on it. In this case it comes down to the fact that I have the right to go to the park and not listen to your speech as much as you have the right to go to the park and speak.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,388
75
91
Fail OP is Fail

The Designated area doesn't limit Free Speech elsewhere, it merely sets aside an area where People/Groups can go and Speak their Mind openly. It is an area where People will Know and Expect that Others will Speak freely on one thing or another, kinda like a Forum dedicated to Discussion. This designated area does not stifle Free Speech, it encourages Free Speech and likely will increase Free Speech.

Britain has a similar concept where People speak freely at a designated place. People not only utilize it, but others come to watch/listen to it.
Color me shocked that someone from a country that does not fully enjoy the right to freedom of speech to not understand how offensive the concept of "free speech zones" are. The US is not Britain and free speech zones are offensive to 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,486
3,597
126
Color me shocked that someone from a country that does not fully enjoy the right to freedom of speech to not understand how offensive the concept of "free speech zones" are. The US is not Britain and free speech zones are offensive to 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
:rolleyes:
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
5
0
Color me shocked that someone from a country that does not fully enjoy the right to freedom of speech to not understand how offensive the concept of "free speech zones" are. The US is not Britain and free speech zones are offensive to 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Fortunately, he can't vote here.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Yes Monterry has specified FREE SPEECH ZONES on Public Property for use of the citizenry without applying for a permit or fear of arrest. Unlike the Cheney/Bush era fenced in, out of sight back alley Free Speech Zones. So jabberjabber got your strawman raked up to full straw stack status yet?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Color me shocked that someone from a country that does not fully enjoy the right to freedom of speech to not understand how offensive the concept of "free speech zones" are. The US is not Britain and free speech zones are offensive to 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Question for you...

What takes precedent:
Your right to speak freely at a city owned park

or

My right to enjoy the city owned park free of disruption??

The idea behind a free speech zone is to allow both the protester and the non-protester equal access to the city park. Keep in mind that 'rights' are not absolute and can be limited in cases where the exercise of one person's 'right' would prevent another from enjoying their 'rights.'
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
5
0
Question for you...

What takes precedent:
Your right to speak freely at a city owned park

or

My right to enjoy the city owned park free of disruption??

The idea behind a free speech zone is to allow both the protester and the non-protester equal access to the city park. Keep in mind that 'rights' are not absolute and can be limited in cases where the exercise of one person's 'right' would prevent another from enjoying their 'rights.'
On what grounds do you have such a right?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Yes Monterry has specified FREE SPEECH ZONES on Public Property for use of the citizenry without applying for a permit or fear of arrest. Unlike the Cheney/Bush era fenced in, out of sight back alley Free Speech Zones. So jabberjabber got your strawman raked up to full straw stack status yet?
Free speech zones existed prior to Bush.

How about the one set up in 1988 at the Atlanta Democratic National Convention?

Or the ones set up in the 60s and 70s at colleges across the country?
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,388
75
91
Question for you...

What takes precedent:
Your right to speak freely at a city owned park

or

My right to enjoy the city owned park free of disruption??

The idea behind a free speech zone is to allow both the protester and the non-protester equal access to the city park. Keep in mind that 'rights' are not absolute and can be limited in cases where the exercise of one person's 'right' would prevent another from enjoying their 'rights.'
Answer: Your right to enjoyment of the park is not exclusive. If you don't like the speech either ignore it, find a place in the park where you don't have to hear it, counter it with your own speech, or decide to visit the park another day. The moment a politician decides to use a public space to stage a political event then those that oppose that politician should have equal access to protest. If the politician is inside a venue such as a Convention Hall or stadium then the protesters should have every right to gather in the closest available public space outside to express their views. Free speech is about as close to absolute as the Constitution gets. The 1st amendment is very clear on this and it is sad that even judges have allowed their political views to get in the way of "Congress shall make no law...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".

Free speech zones existed prior to Bush.
Yes they did, so what? Wrong is wrong whether it was being done before or after January 20, 2001.

How about the one set up in 1988 at the Atlanta Democratic National Convention?

Or the ones set up in the 60s and 70s at colleges across the country?
Wrong and wrong. Just because they have been allowed, in my view, to violate the Constitution in the past is no justification to continue violate it in perpetuity.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,486
3,597
126
Answer: Your right to enjoyment of the park is not exclusive. If you don't like the speech either ignore it, find a place in the park where you don't have to hear it, counter it with your own speech, or decide to visit the park another day. The moment a politician decides to use a public space to stage a political event then those that oppose that politician should have equal access to protest. If the politician is inside a venue such as a Convention Hall or stadium then the protesters should have every right to gather in the closest available public space outside to express their views. Free speech is about as close to absolute as the Constitution gets. The 1st amendment is very clear on this and it is sad that even judges have allowed their political views to get in the way of "Congress shall make no law...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".



Yes they did, so what? Wrong is wrong whether it was being done before or after January 20, 2001.



Wrong and wrong. Just because they have been allowed, in my view, to violate the Constitution in the past is no justification to continue violate it in perpetuity.
You are committing the error of making equivalent this "Free Speech" zone with Bush's Free Speech Zones. The Concepts and Intents are very different.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY