|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 09/18/2007 : 18:56:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by HalfMooner
There are laws that require citizens to comply with lawful orders of police officers. If the young man wanted to make a point, he did so, but he should understand, as all nonviolent demonstrators do, that being arrested is the price one must pay for violating the law, or lawful police orders.
|
It is a lawful order from a police officer to command a citizen to stop speaking in a public forum to a public servant?
You are a supporter of tyranny!
Have you ever read the constitution? If so, you need to reread it. I would recommend a dictionary by your side. |
Yes! It all depends on what the person is saying, and how that person is acting! And as has already been noted, Jerome, the officers responsible for the excessive force have been suspended, and John Kerry had nothing to do with their actions. Quite being a troll. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 18:56:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It is a lawful order from a police officer to command a citizen to stop speaking in a public forum to a public servant? |
That you still paint this as something so cut-and-dried is simply insane of you, Jerome.| You are a supporter of tyranny! |
And you are a tyrant, Jerome.| Have you ever read the constitution? If so, you need to reread it. I would recommend a dictionary by your side. |
So all I need to know in order to rob a bank and delay my arrest indefinitely is that I need to run to the town hall, interrupt the proceedings and begin to ask the mayor questions. If the police try to arrest me while I'm talking, Jerome will say that they're denying me my Constitutional rights. I wonder if this is the tactic that Jerome uses after yelling "fire!" in a crowded, non-burning theater. "I have just one question for you, Mr. Public Servant, but it comes in 39 parts, so you and the police may wish to sit down." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:10:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Yes! It all depends on what the person is saying, and how that person is acting!
|
Really, just to confirm what you just wrote.
The state has the authority to stop someone from speaking politically based on what they are saying and/or the manner in which they are saying it?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:22:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The state has the authority to stop someone from speaking politically based on what they are saying and/or the manner in which they are saying it? |
Yes, if a person is making otherwise legal speech while waving a loaded gun at a crowd, I fervently hope that the state has the authority to take him down. Furthermore, incitement to riot is a crime. These are just two examples.
Freedom of speech is not now, nor has it ever been nor will it ever be, absolute. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:22:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Yes! It all depends on what the person is saying, and how that person is acting!
|
Really, just to confirm what you just wrote.
The state has the authority to stop someone from speaking politically based on what they are saying and/or the manner in which they are saying it?
|
You've added "politically" into the discussion, which wasn't in your original question. Originally, it was "speaking in a public forum to a public servant." Don't move the goal posts. You should know that by now. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:28:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
You've added "politically" into the discussion, which wasn't in your original question. Originally, it was "speaking in a public forum to a public servant." Don't move the goal posts. You should know that by now.
|
Lets see if you can follow the context.
Kerry is a political figure. (topic)
Political speech concerning a political figure concerning the political figures actions concerning a political election.
You statement was the weakest horse shit I have seen in a long time.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:33:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The state has the authority to stop someone from speaking politically based on what they are saying and/or the manner in which they are saying it? |
Yes, if a person is making otherwise legal speech while waving a loaded gun at a crowd, I fervently hope that the state has the authority to take him down. Furthermore, incitement to riot is a crime. These are just two examples. |
Waving the gun at the crowd is a crime. The speech has nothing to do with committing a crime. You can not redefine my phrase "manner of speaking" to mean committing a crime.
Freedom of speech is not now, nor has it ever been nor will it ever be, absolute.
|
No argument here.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:34:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
You've added "politically" into the discussion, which wasn't in your original question. Originally, it was "speaking in a public forum to a public servant." Don't move the goal posts. You should know that by now.
|
Lets see if you can follow the context.
Kerry is a political figure. (topic)
Political speech concerning a political figure concerning the political figures actions concerning a political election.
You statement was the weakest horse shit I have seen in a long time. |
Huh? You asked if there would be a time when it would be right for the police to arrest a person for "speaking in a public forum to a public servant." The answer is yes. If I said to John Kerry, "I'm going to rip your throat out and feed it to your children right now" then yes, the police should come after me. It's as simple as that. I'm sorry if you think it's horse shit. I wouldn't expect you to think any other way, however.
ETA: Moreover, even if I asked some normal question in a raised voice, perhaps with aggressive action (like pushing people out of the way to ask my question), then I may be asked by authority figures to step aside, and if I got out of line, then I could be disturbing the peace, none of which would be directly related to asking a political question per se. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/18/2007 19:37:25 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:34:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Lets see if you can follow the context. |
Kerry doesn't even know in what context Meyer got arrested. So how is it that you know, Jerome?
I can see you're studiously avoiding my posts, probably because you know you've got nothing but outrage to back up your weak suppositions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:35:06 [Permalink]
|
Jerome just admires the guy's trollish, disruptive behavior. Jerome and that guy both equate disrupting other people's right to free speech with free speech itself. No taking turns, or even letting people answer your questions!
As for Jerome calling me a tyrant, I admit it. I always have been, and always will be an autocratic dictator and despot. And I'm proud of it. Everything which I do not forbid is mandatory.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/18/2007 19:37:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:36:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Waving the gun at the crowd is a crime. The speech has nothing to do with committing a crime. You can not redefine my phrase "manner of speaking" to mean committing a crime. |
Incitement to riot is still a crime that can consist of nothing but words, Jerome. I see you're only avoiding the parts of my posts which are devestating to your miserable case. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:36:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
As for Jerome calling me a tyrant, I admit it. I always have been, and always will be an autocratic dictator and despot. And I'm proud of it, so there!
|
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:43:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Waving the gun at the crowd is a crime. The speech has nothing to do with committing a crime. You can not redefine my phrase "manner of speaking" to mean committing a crime. |
Incitement to riot is still a crime that can consist of nothing but words, Jerome. I see you're only avoiding the parts of my posts which are devestating to your miserable case.
|
Your arguments are ridiculous.
No one waved a gun.
No one incited a riot.
No one committed a crime.
You used the "fire in a crowded theater" idea incorrectly.
Holmes:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. |
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:45:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME over here
A U.S. Senator watching police tazer a college student for asking an uncomfortable question would be tyranny. |
What evidence do you have that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Meyer was tasered because he asked Kerry an "uncomfortable" question? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 19:48:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME over here
A U.S. Senator watching police tazer a college student for asking an uncomfortable question would be tyranny. |
What evidence do you have that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Meyer was tasered because he asked Kerry an "uncomfortable" question?
|
I did not state "Meyer was tasered because he asked Kerry an "uncomfortable" question".
I stated an example of what tyranny looks like.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 09/18/2007 19:48:35 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Tazer and Arrested by Kerry!
