Fairness Doctrine

[G O B 3,516]

You guys are missing the now deceased principle of the right to free assosiation. We all have the God given right to asssosiate ourselves with those of like mind. If that is in a local bar to cheer the hometeam,or a political gathering to psych yourselves up over the election, then it is allso our right to NOT assosiate with those who are of a different opinion. To stand across the street and protest is our Constitutionalright. To wade into the middle and veheomently disrupt the gathering is to violate the Constitutional right of the gathering to NOT assosiate with YOU!

[bigj480 203]

You guys are missing the now deceased principle of the right to free assosiation. We all have the God given right to asssosiate ourselves with those of like mind. If that is in a local bar to cheer the hometeam,or a political gathering to psych yourselves up over the election, then it is allso our right to NOT assosiate with those who are of a different opinion. To stand across the street and protest is our Constitutionalright. To wade into the middle and veheomently disrupt the gathering is to violate the Constitutional right of the gathering to NOT assosiate with YOU!

 

 

"The phrase "freedom of association" does not appear in the Constitution (although the First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble). Nonetheless, the Court has recognized to separate types of association that are constitutionally protected: (1) intimate association (protected as an aspect of the right of privacy) and (2) expressive association (protected as as an aspect of the First Amendment's protection of free speech)."

 

Freedom of association - Homosexuals can't joint the Boy Scouts of America. You don't have to join any organization or let anybody into your private organization. You have the right to join a union.

 

This guy was not joining an association or forcing them to join his so he is not in violation of this right. The only exception would be if the venue was rented by Obama supporters, then they could deny him admission. It would then be a private event, subject to the rules of the organizers. Yes, if you are in a bar and do not agree with someone, don't invite the to join your frat, but that does not give you the right to have them arrested unless you are the bar owner, have asked them to leave and they refused. Again, that is a private place subject to the rules the owner has in place. At that point they are trespassing. Do you not see what kind of problems could arise if the freedom of association worked like you think it does? Hey, Bob was setting right in the middle of my buddies and was saying that he doesn't like pancakes(whatever the case may be), he's infringing on my 1A rights because he was too close when disagreeing.

Right to peacefully assemble - You can assemble and be peaceful, pretty self explanatory.

 

Now, was the guy being peaceful before the police came or being "vehemently" disruptive? No one knows. Was his shirt causing a disruption? Probably, but at some point others are to blame for taking offense to something that is not offensive. For example, in cases where people call the police because they feel threatened by a person who is legally openly carrying a handgun. Those people are told it is perfectly legal and the legally armed person is not charged with a crime as he did not commit one. That said, the guy didn't listen to the police and he was drunk. If he felt that his rights were being infringed, he could have filed suit at a later date and he obviously was breaking the law by being drunk in public. A lawful arrest, but it has NOTHING to do with the drunks 1A rights. Had he not been drunk and was forced to leave because of a shirt, it would have been unconstitutional. However, in that situation there would not be a problem with the cops asking him to move out of the crowd, as long as he can speak his mind(or say nothing) peacefully.

Edited November 12, 2008 by bigj480

[22_Shooter 1,560]

It sounds like your hinting toward that I support the .gov protecting us "for our own good". I can assure you, that's not the case.

 

This is how I look at it; let's say this guy was your friend. Wouldn't you rather the police remove his obviously drunk ass from the situation, as opposed to letting him go on his way in that crowd? I can't count how many times I've pulled drunk friends from situations that they were in, that they wouldn't be in, if they weren't drunk.

 

I didn't notice that he was drunk, my fault. Arresting him for a real offense is fine. Yes, if a drunk friend was doing the same thing, I would have pulled him out of the crowd. Only because he was drunk, not because he was wearing a McCain shirt.

 

-I agree that the McCain shirt should not have been a problem.

 

There's no way in hell a couple cops would be able to watch over 1 guy in a crowd of who-knows-how-many. They shouldn't have to, either. Even if they did watch over him, X amount of crazed Obamanauts, freshly buzzed from the "victory" would easily get mass amounts of damage done, before a cop even gets to the guy.

 

That's fine, I can't argue that point, the guy was drunk and not listening to the cops. Otherwise, let him stay.

 

As for the last part of your post, talking of blaming those who would have committed the violence, and not the guy.....I'm not sure where you picked up that I thought otherwise.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, friend.

 

It was my understanding that you were blaming a sober guy for exercising his 1A rights and being arrested. I now understand that he was drunk and uncooperative, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

-That's another thing that's unclear about the video; if he was actually arrested or not. I've been put in cuffs and not arrested. And the one time I was actually arrested, I was not put in cuffs. So who knows if he was actually arrested or not.

 

I couldn't care less about what others think of my opinion, I'm not one to sit down and shut-up if I disagree. In this case, I misread the article and those who think less of me as a result can kiss my ass.

 

- I don't think anyone thinks less of you. Lot's of disagreements happen here. BUT, you are still the stalker guy from that other thread . I keed, I keed.

Edited November 12, 2008 by 22_Shooter

[bigj480 203]

- I don't think anyone thinks less of you. Lot's of disagreements happen here. BUT, you are still the stalker guy from that other thread . I keed, I keed.

 

Don't taunt me! I know what brand of ketchup you use!

[22_Shooter 1,560]

- I don't think anyone thinks less of you. Lot's of disagreements happen here. BUT, you are still the stalker guy from that other thread . I keed, I keed.

 

Don't taunt me! I know what brand of ketchup you use!

 

So you're aware that I use the blood of stalkers as my ketchup?

 

Again, I keed.