Permission to Protest?

[MU82]

Can't? No. But the threshold is very very high. Calling someone or even multiple someones a whore. Not going to cut it anywhere I know.

Well, it's certainly enough to get a person arrested, depending upon the officers on the scene. As to whether it is enough to get a person charged with any kind of crime, I doubt it.

[StillAWarrior]

Why are we focusing on the calling people whores? It was stated that he actually threatened rape and my understanding is that is more than enough to warrant an arrest.

He did not threaten rape.  He said that girls who dress provocatively are asking to be raped.  That is absolutely not a threat to rape them.  My point in the initial post about this was that some parents' response to that was to claim he was threatening to rape them and should be arrested.  They cited that as evidence he was dangerous.  In reality, this guy (who apparently has been preaching there for many, many years) is not dangerous.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

ya see tamu, this is where you get yourself into trouble-"it SOUNDS like"

  i truly do not understand it or get it, but once again, i did not say shut them down.  i may not like it, but i didn't say shut them down, i may think it's wrong to conceal ones identity during a protest, but i did not say shut it down

That's...not what you said.  You said: "i do not understand how or why "demonstrations" are allowed by people concealing their identity."

It certainly does sound like you mean that it should be against the rules, law...whatever.  If that's not what you meant, then fine.  But I certainly understand why TAMU misunderstood you.

[StillAWarrior]

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/jun/17/street-preachers-arrested-tennessee-accused-calling-people-sinners/310071/

https://marioncountymessenger.com/2016/09/jury-finds-jasper-man-guilty-of-inciting-a-riot-at-lee-highway-memorial/

To be clear, I'm not suggesting an arrest should or shouldn't happen. But it was asked "on what grounds" could a person be arrested in that circumstance. This is the answer.

Going back one post further, Jockey said he should be arrested.  I asked, "On what ground [should he be arrested]?"  And you responded.

I'm well aware that he "could" be arrested.  He "could" be arrested for a lot of things.  And, depending on the facts, he might even be charged and convicted.  But, to address what Jockey said, unless there is something really unique about the situation, he "should not" be arrested.

[Jockey]

No he shouldn't. Other people should call him out,  shout him down,  or try to have an educational conversation with him,  but not arrest him. You cant arrest someone just because you don't like their speech. The best way to fight hateful speech is with more speech

Then, using the same rationale, would you be fine with someone standing at a busy street corner calling for all women to be killed? I don't mean that sarcastically, TAMU, but where is the line crossed?

If a man is speechifying about how women are whores, doesn't that make it more likely that women will be assaulted or worse because once you can de-humanize a group, history has shown that the group is in mortal danger.

Where is the line between speech that is unpleasant/nasty and speech that can cause injury or death? We have seen how hateful speech ("invasion", "rapists", "drug dealers") has caused death to Hispanics. Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?

[StillAWarrior]

Then, using the same rationale, would you be fine with someone standing at a busy street corner calling for all women to be killed? I don't mean that sarcastically, TAMU, but where is the line crossed?

If a man is speechifying about how women are whores, doesn't that make it more likely that women will be assaulted or worse because once you can de-humanize a group, history has shown that the group is in mortal danger.

Where is the line between speech that is unpleasant/nasty and speech that can cause injury or death? We have seen how hateful speech ("invasion", "rapists", "drug dealers") has caused death to Hispanics. Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?

The line is exactly where you have just drawn it.  If a person stands on a street corner and is encouraging or inciting violence, it is not protected speech.  He can and should be arrested.  if a person stands on a street corner and screams that all the women are whores and sinners (and bear in mind that the men are getting blasted too), it is not inciting violence.

Edited:  Actually, I want to modify my answer:  if he's calling "for all women to be killed" it might be protected.  If he's calling, "kill that woman right there" it probably would not be protected.  Depends on how specific he's getting.

[mu03eng]

Then, using the same rationale, would you be fine with someone standing at a busy street corner calling for all women to be killed? I don't mean that sarcastically, TAMU, but where is the line crossed?

If a man is speechifying about how women are whores, doesn't that make it more likely that women will be assaulted or worse because once you can de-humanize a group, history has shown that the group is in mortal danger.

Where is the line between speech that is unpleasant/nasty and speech that can cause injury or death? We have seen how hateful speech ("invasion", "rapists", "drug dealers") has caused death to Hispanics. Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?

This is precisely why the first amendment exists.....to protect all speech from the government. If someone wants to yell on a public space about the need to kill people that speech should be protected(by protected I mean not arrested or otherwise engaged by government entities). There is no need to draw a line because there shouldn't be a line....that's preciously why drawing a line of any kind around speech is extremely problematic.

[StillAWarrior]

Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?

No.  Generally, yes.

[tower912]

It is important to confront that speech, argue with that speech, actively work against the premises of that speech, rebut that speech, but not outlaw that speech.

It is also fair to judge people by the stupid stuff they say.   We all have made judgements about each other.   If somebody makes liberal, conservative, hippie, sexist, racist, vegan, grain free comments, well......

And on a message board, the moderators set the rules and get to decide where their line is.   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

ya see tamu, this is where you get yourself into trouble-"it SOUNDS like"

  i truly do not understand it or get it, but once again, i did not say shut them down.  i may not like it, but i didn't say shut them down, i may think it's wrong to conceal ones identity during a protest, but i did not say shut it down

you are confused?  i think you know very well who/what i'm referring to.  i want this thread to make it beyond 4 pm eastern standard

So say you don't like it. What you actually said was "I don't get how this is allowed." Which is advocating for that form of free speech to be shut down.

I honestly am confused. The first thing that popped into my head was Klansmen in robes but that doesn't seem to be what you're referring to. Please explain.

[MUBurrow]

It is important to confront that speech, argue with that speech, actively work against the premises of that speech, rebut that speech, but not outlaw that speech.

It is also fair to judge people by the stupid stuff they say.   We all have made judgements about each other.   If somebody makes liberal, conservative, hippie, sexist, racist, vegan, grain free comments, well......

And on a message board, the moderators set the rules and get to decide where their line is.

Agreed, which is why I've found all the maligning of "cancel culture" confusing. Isn't cancelling exactly what we claim should be the response to abhorrent speech and ideas?

[Pakuni]

This is precisely why the first amendment exists.....to protect all speech from the government. If someone wants to yell on a public space about the need to kill people that speech should be protected(by protected I mean not arrested or otherwise engaged by government entities). There is no need to draw a line because there shouldn't be a line....that's preciously why drawing a line of any kind around speech is extremely problematic.

"Fire" in a crowded theater?
False report of a crime?
Threats against the president?

[StillAWarrior]

"Fire" in a crowded theater?
False report of a crime?
Threats against the president?

Obviously, those are three examples of unprotected speech.  I took a very quick look at how the Wisconsin law you cited has been interpreted, and one of the cases upholding its constitutionality said, "Because the disorderly conduct statute only proscribes speech that is not constitutionally protected, it does not result in the statute becoming overly broad...the disorderly conduct statute does not infringe on speech that is protected under the First Amendment because the statute sanctions only categories of speech that have been traditionally regarded as beyond the protection of the First Amendment."

In other words, things like those you listed (and some others) which have historically not been protected, will cause someone to get arrested for disorderly conduct.  Things like street preaches, which have historically been protected, will not.

[mu03eng]

"Fire" in a crowded theater?
False report of a crime?
Threats against the president?

First one is problematic, but is it really "speech"?

False report of a crime is an action....just because words are used doesn't make it speech in that concept

Threats against the president....sure investigate to see if there is any action planned, but if it's just speech who cares?

[StillAWarrior]

I honestly am confused. The first thing that popped into my head was Klansmen in robes but that doesn't seem to be what you're referring to. Please explain.

I can't speak for him, but from context I'm guessing he means Antifa.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I can't speak for him, but from context I'm guessing he means Antifa.

Of course.  Mindless regurgitation of the latest talking point.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Of course.  Mindless regurgitation of the latest talking point.

[Galway Eagle]

It says more about you as a person than it does Antifa. Cura personalis

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

It says more about you as a person than it does Antifa. Cura personalis

???  I’m saying that Ike was an original Anti Fascist.

[tower912]

Missing the point.  DDE was the original Antifa.  Led entire armies against the Nazis and Fascists.

[#UnleashSean]

I’ll just be happy when both sides are given equal treatment to speak on campus and not be blocked which is happening way too much.  If we want a free speech convo, let’s fix the access part first.

Hdy chicos said something that wasn't insane.

[buckchuckler]

nm

[StillAWarrior]

Well... I think this thread may have turned a corner toward inevitable closure.  Disappointing.  Not surprising, of course, but disappointing nonetheless.  Damn.  I thought it was an interesting conversation. 


I apologize to all for my role in that (naming the previously unnamed group that I thought someone else was referring to).  My bad.

[Jon]

No he shouldn't. Other people should call him out,  shout him down,  or try to have an educational conversation with him,  but not arrest him. You cant arrest someone just because you don't like their speech. The best way to fight hateful speech is with more speech

There is a segment of American society who actively block the right of others to speak.

The fact that someone demands the arrest of someone because he doesn't like what they have to say is chilling.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrased Voltaire when she wrote, "I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say." It's a damn shame that so many people have lost sight of that fundamental principle of freedom and a just society.

I recall the Supreme Court ruling which guaranteed the right of the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie which had the highest concentration of Nazi Death Camp survivors. The high court found that while it found the message reprehensible the Constitution ensured the right to say it.

Denying the right of free speech is anathema to the proper function of a democratic society. Only an idiot would suggest someone be arrested because of what they are saying.

[Jon]

Then, using the same rationale, would you be fine with someone standing at a busy street corner calling for all women to be killed? I don't mean that sarcastically, TAMU, but where is the line crossed?

If a man is speechifying about how women are whores, doesn't that make it more likely that women will be assaulted or worse because once you can de-humanize a group, history has shown that the group is in mortal danger.

Where is the line between speech that is unpleasant/nasty and speech that can cause injury or death? We have seen how hateful speech ("invasion", "rapists", "drug dealers") has caused death to Hispanics. Is this OK? Is this what we want to protect?