On Nov 1, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > > On Nov 1, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Brian Lawson wrote: > >> On Nov 1, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Francis Drouillard wrote: >>> On Nov 1, 2008, at 4:15 AM, richardsan san wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Brian Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> And this surprises you when we've decided it is OK to bomb >>>> another country "preemptively"? Can't have US citizens exercising >>>> their right to free speech now can we? Shouldn't we preempt that >>>> as well? What first amendment? >>>> -- >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> On Oct 31, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: >>>> > <http://tinyurl.com/67s4yf> >>>> >>>> i actually got arrested for standing my ground on a similar >>>> 'you're trespassing' after paying to get into an event...fucking >>>> pigs. >>>> they did the same thing during bush's rallies. fucking republican >>>> pigs. >>> >>> You silly little democrats are such hypocrites. I don't recall >>> such indignity being expressed when he kicked reporters off his >>> plane yesterday. I know that was a long time ago, but please! >>> >>> There's also this concept of freedom of association or assembly. >>> You may have heard of it: >>> >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly> >>> >>> That means you have a right to associate with individuals of your >>> choosing -- usually to express political views. Look a little >>> deeper and you'll understand it's okay to exclude those from your >>> assembly that don't share your views. That's why Boy Scouts have >>> the right to expel gays from their ranks, so long as they don't >>> feed at the public funding trough. >>> >>> Those expelled didn't have a right to disrupt McCain's free speech >>> rights or to disturb those exercising their rights to freedom of >>> association. They may gain that right in an Obama thugocracy, but >>> they don't have that right now. >> >> The expelled had not disrupted anything. They were sitting quietly >> waiting for the event to get started. Even people who had voted for >> McCain were removed based solely on the premise "I think you might >> cause a problem sometime in the future." Guilty before anything has >> even happened. > > I'm sure their intentions were all pure as the driven snow.
And how do you know what their intentions were? As I said, even people who voted for McCain, his own supporters, were removed without cause. Do you believe that McCain voters were going to disrupt his speech? If so, he's in serious trouble. And the American public is in even more serious trouble when officials start condemning and punishing people just because those officials decide that those people may do something at some time in the future. I can't believe that you support such a position Francis. You've written about abuses of power and constitutional rights here. >> There's a big difference between that and "I don't have enough room >> for you on my plane, you're going to have to leave." And FWIW, I >> think that was a cheap shot too. > > Kirsten Powers -- a Democrat pundit -- calls "BS" on the not-enough- > room argument: > > <http://www.nypost.com/seven/11012008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_nixonesque_move_from_team_obama_136286.htm > > > > or > <http://tinyurl.com/56xwqo> > > But all of it is really just the rough and tumble of presidential > campaigns. None of it bothers me too much, but the apparent > conflicts between freedom of speech and freedom of association and > exclusion are interesting. Amy Gutmann has some interesting points > on that conflict: > > <http://books.google.com/books?id=xrVFPzMTqjYC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=freedom+of+association+exclusion&source=web&ots=2tx_rB12a-&sig=tLvVRXZPhh7qhsmagY1trjDxnWc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA90,M1 > > > > or > <http://tinyurl.com/6cxjox> > > As you can see, there is considerable room for argument on where to > draw the line. When public funds are involved, you can't exclude for > any reason. When the associations are private you have the right to > discriminate within limits. For example, Boy Scouts are free to > purge gays from their ranks, but not blacks. > > The point is, the conflicts between rights needs to be approached > with caution. Amy suggests one's right to discriminate cannot be > allowed if it undermines one's other civil rights. Agreed and one of our basic civil rights and duties is to be involved in the political discussion in this country. > The way I see the McCain purge is that they chose to discriminate > against those that didn't share their common political views, but > they did not undermine their right to free speech. They may have a > right to speak against McCain's policies, but they don't have a > right to do it at the same time in the same place using his > microphone and stage. And how did the people doing the removing know what the political views were of those who were removed? Do they not believe that McCain voters share his political views? How did they know that the people who had not voted for McCain were not there to see if that was what they wanted to do? They obviously couldn't know anything of the sort just as they could not know in advance any of those people were going to be a disruption. And that is the whole point of this discussion, that people can not be judged on actions they have not taken. They should not be punished for things they have not done. -- Brian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
