Something seems odd about this....
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
NZ Poke: "Not going to tell anyone where to look for news, only that CNN has been exposed as fake news."
NZ Poke:
Does anyone who receives news from CNN feel funny about it?
View image on Twitter
Follow
WikiLeaks
✔@wikileaks
Former CNN host, current DNC Chair Donna Brazile, exposed as leaking 2nd townhall question to Hillary Clinton https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 …
NZ Poke:
Does anyone who receives news from CNN feel funny about it?
View image on Twitter
Follow
WikiLeaks ✔@wikileaks
Former CNN host, current DNC Chair Donna Brazile, exposed as leaking 2nd townhall question to Hillary Clinton https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 …
Paid agitators gonna agitate.
CNN front and center.
CNN front and center.
Where the hell can I get one of these paid agitator jobs?
Send me, JD, Mega, Medic, HSH, CBrad, windriver, Headhunter, squeak, NZ, etc. your credit card information. For only $19 dollars a month, or maybe per day/per each, we'll send you the enrollment forms and get back to you after our Easter committee meeting. Do it within the next 24 hours and we'll double our price and get back to you by July 4th.
Now that we have an AG in place I expect to see some cracking down on these protesters including investigating where their funds are coming from.
Is it a crime to pay protestors?
To riot...to commit crimes...sure.
But just to protest?
No but aren't we toeing the line of organized crime when said protesters are intimidating others and inciting violence?
These aren't exactly peaceful protests.
Engaging in violence (battery/vandalism/property damage), I'd say yes.
Inciting violence as legally defined as a crime, I'd say yes.
Assaulting others as the crime is legally defined, I'd say yes.
Intimidating others, I'd say no.....probably not even close to criminal.
Intimidating others, I'd say no.....probably not even close to criminal.
The New Black Panthers approve of this message
All first Amendment lovers should.
If you understood fully what I said in its entirety instead of quoting out of context.
Last edited:
JD is fine with shutting down free speech.
"Bodacious ta-ta's" always win, despite the fools who pretend anything more than a mouthful is wasted.
Depends on how you are defining "shutting down". Counter-protests to speech you disagree with absolutely is free speech.
Let's say someone has an event scheduled so they can talk to a group of people. A billionaire pays a bunch of people who don't live in the area to show up and shout over the person at the scheduled event to the point he can't continue on, and those who showed up to hear him don't really get to hear much.
Is that ok?
JD I was poking at you about the incident with the clubs outside the polling station, and the subsequent lack of any real penalty.
Have no issues with anyone peacefully protesting while still allowing opposition groups to gather and letting them do so without violence.
I'm against abortion, but believe it's here to stay and as long as people get the proper permitting should be allowed to protest where they can. If they are gathered illegally (don't care who it is) they need to be dealt with accordingly.
Have no issues with anyone peacefully protesting while still allowing opposition groups to gather and letting them do so without violence.
I'm against abortion, but believe it's here to stay and as long as people get the proper permitting should be allowed to protest where they can. If they are gathered illegally (don't care who it is) they need to be dealt with accordingly.
Define intimidating please. Would that be similar to bullying? I think I could make a case that intentional actions to intimidate are not protected.
Get shortbus to do so.....it's his term.
My statements were an attempt to refine his broad language into what would be illegal, criminal conduct and what would not.
That or define it yourself in making your case. If you make your case, apply it to anti-abortion rallies outside of clinics to see if it meets your standard definition of "intimidating".
There are statutes in Oklahoma that make certain specific acts of intimidation illegal. None make all acts to intimidate illegal. They make specific acts or situations illegal. Speech and protests in groups can be by their very nature by intimidating. They almost always are attempting motivate someone to do something or not do something. That's an awfully subjective shifting standard to base the first amendment upon.
Ok or legal? Two different things.
Also, you're going to need to provide more details. You might very well have misdemeanor disturbing the peace, possibly trespassing, etc. that would justify removing them from the event. If they resisted, they very well may have committed additional offenses. How about you cite and define the specific statute you allege it violates and under which a crime was committed instead of me doing your research for you.
My general point was and has been.....illegal conduct....prosecute away. If you can't show illegal conduct, it's likely protected speech. Certainly presumptively so.
The burden of establishing illegal conduct weighs on the parties alleging it and general statements like "harassing, intimidating, shutting down" don't get them there in my book.
The burden of establishing illegal conduct weighs on the parties alleging it and general statements like "harassing, intimidating, shutting down" don't get them there in my book.
I'm a firm believer that the response to words you disagree with is more words, not less. Any action designed to intimidate or harass the people you disagree with in order to stifle their opposition is wrong and should be illegal.
Also, anyone who has to resort to that type of activity automatically loses the moral high ground and any opportunity to win the debate on the merits.
Also, anyone who has to resort to that type of activity automatically loses the moral high ground and any opportunity to win the debate on the merits.
"Any action designed to intimidate or harass the people you disagree with in order to stifle their opposition is wrong and should be illegal."
Awfully broad, subjective, and vague standard. Heck, protests on the street against a business raging others not to shop their.....union strikes and picket lines....heck even calls for boycotts could fit in your definition.
Awfully broad, subjective, and vague standard. Heck, protests on the street against a business raging others not to shop their.....union strikes and picket lines....heck even calls for boycotts could fit in your definition.
In order to stifle their opposition... You left off that portion.
Union strikes don't stop someone else from doing the exact same thing across the street.
That's the difference.
Union strikes don't stop someone else from doing the exact same thing across the street.
That's the difference.
I actually don't know if it violates anything. I'm asking a legal question. At what point does infringing on others rights become ok because your rights are protected?
Clearly it is not OK. But it is, and should be, constitutionally protected by the first amendment. Most people recognize that protests of the kind you describe are immoral. Most people (myself included) are disgusted by such tactics. One can't help but wonder why the protesters don't see their actions will backfire. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they are so intent on dividing the nation they don't care if it backfires. Maybe that's their true intent. Whatever their intentions, however, their actions are protected.
Then my response would be that, criminality is very fact specific and your hypothetical doesn't provide enough information to make a legal call. I'd also say that the issue of criminality is left up to the law enforcement and prosecuting authorities within a particular location.
I most certainly did not leave off that portion.
Strikes seek to stifle the speech/conduct in the form of acts of the employer being struck against.
Boycotts are expressly designed to stifle or stop the speech or conduct of the party they are boycotting.
Heck, it could even be simply interpreted as "more speech" in response to speech you disagree with which you said you have no problem with.
I totally disagree. The mere fact that a group of people strike and then picket the corporate is in itself isn't an act to prevent the other side from responding at all. I just think you are totally wrong on this. I've been on both sides of strikes. Once when I was a Teamster (local 886) and now on the corporate side. Both sides have had plenty of opportunity to speak and act.
We even have protester protocols where we respect their right to protest.
Disagree all you like. That's fine. I stand by my position that "Any action designed to intimidate or harass the people you disagree with in order to stifle their opposition is wrong and should be illegal." is incredibly broad, vague, and subjective.
And I'd accept that criticism if I were a legislator or attorney and my profession needed overly legalistic frameworks. If you were discussing cybersecurity on a message board, I'd also forgive some non-technical language and listen to what you meant as opposed to focusing on common misuse of industry verbiage in an attempt to parse language in order to argue a point that I think we both are probably pretty close on in theory.
Accept it or don't.
We ARE talking law and the Constitution and what should be legal or illegal. "Incredibly broad, vague, and subjective" isn't an overly legalistic or technical response. It also isn't parsing language. Attempt to refine and be more specific in what you mean I'd don't. Either is fine.
I honestly have no idea how close or far apart we are.
If by "intimidating" you mean language that places a reasonable person in fear of imminent bodily harm, that's assault and is illegal.
If you're talking about booing or shouting at a public town hall meeting in the hopes that it becomes impractical, too hard, or not worth someone's time to continue, in other word's...attempting to shout the other side down, it's an altogether different proposition to me, IMO that's boorish, bad, and exhibits intellectual weakness that harms the argument of those doing so in my (so yes....bad), but shouldn't be illegal.
If by "intimidating" you mean language that places a reasonable person in fear of imminent bodily harm, that's assault and is illegal.
If you're talking about booing or shouting at a public town hall meeting in the hopes that it becomes impractical, too hard, or not worth someone's time to continue, in other word's...attempting to shout the other side down, it's an altogether different proposition to me, IMO that's boorish, bad, and exhibits intellectual weakness that harms the argument of those doing so in my (so yes....bad), but shouldn't be illegal.
