or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 389

post #5821 of 6076
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post


addressing the reductio ad absurdum examples posited earlier, if we start by assuming that we're actually talking about protected speech (and CK was not even out of bounds of NFL policy fwiu) i think that dispenses with the first.

Bad assumption as this has nothing to do with protected speech. No unwarranted government restriction is in any way happening in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

one could call a riot an extreme form of protest but it was never within bounds in the first place. 

to the second i believe holocaust denial is protected speech. whether in front of a synagogue or a whole foods it is almost universally distasteful. and yet political speech never needed to be particularly savory in the first place. 

Again, no. The folks running the synagogue can kick the holocaust deniers out on their asses and there's nothing the deniers could do about it. Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

if somebody cares to come up with a worthwhile example (that doesn't waste my precious keystrokes in response) perhaps it is possible to find the precise limits of political etiquette (which has been - for some - the basis of dismissing CKs protest)

You wouldn't know a worthwhile example if it bit you on the arse.
post #5822 of 6076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


I'm not asking about "ground rules" I asked if you think there's no such thing as an improper venue. You apparently think it's cool for NAMBLA to speak at a Boy Scout gathering?

 

The counter would be that its impropriety has to do with the morality of the protesters and not their choice of venue, or as much.

post #5823 of 6076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Bad assumption as this has nothing to do with protected speech. No unwarranted government restriction is in any way happening in this case.

Again, no. The folks running the synagogue can kick the holocaust deniers out on their asses and there's nothing the deniers could do about it. Try again.

You wouldn't know a worthwhile example if it bit you on the arse.


your first example (the rough sex protesters or whatever) has everything to do with unprotected (no pun intended) speech. again, your example. so if it is apropos of nothing then i guess you've got some soul searching to do.

 

http://www.annarbor.com/news/beth-israel-congregants-reflect-on-10-years-of-protests-outside-synagogue-we-certainly-didnt-ask-for/

 

you keep presenting crappy straw men. that's certainly not my fault.

post #5824 of 6076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


I'm not asking about "ground rules" I asked if you think there's no such thing as an improper venue. You apparently think it's cool for NAMBLA to speak at a Boy Scout gathering?

 

How I might personally feel about a protest is irrelevant.  

 

A NAMBLA recruiting drive is not a protest.  A better example would be the practices of Westboro Baptist Cul..errr...Church

post #5825 of 6076

I did not know what NAMBLA was. Just another strange thing that SF has added to my internet history.

post #5826 of 6076
You've never gotten their direct mail? Better than the realtors' glossies sometimes IMO. Aesthetic-wise, not content, of course.
post #5827 of 6076
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post


your first example (the rough sex protesters or whatever) has everything to do with unprotected (no pun intended) speech. again, your example. so if it is apropos of nothing then i guess you've got some soul searching to do.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/beth-israel-congregants-reflect-on-10-years-of-protests-outside-synagogue-we-certainly-didnt-ask-for/

you keep presenting crappy straw men. that's certainly not my fault.

Outside the synagogue. Nice try though. Also, you'll notice your article proves my point, i.e. folks think the venue sucks.

Have you come to your senses yet and realized the kneel at an NFL game has nothing to do with "protected speech?" As LD said earlier CK could have been cut for this with no legal recourse. I think he might have a better grip on this situation then either of us. Private actors are not the government and this is key.

I find it funny that folks are defending the thought that all venues are apropos for all protests. Here's hoping to an entertaining Friday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

How I might personally feel about a protest is irrelevant.  

A NAMBLA recruiting drive is not a protest.  A better example would be the practices of Westboro Baptist Cul..errr...Church

First statement is a nice side step and completely non-responsive. This whole topic tangent actually is about how we feel concerning the venue, you in particular, as you've made a comment about people that think CK's venue in inappropriate.

I wasn't particularly going with protests but Westboro is a good example. You think funeral processions for fallen soldiers is a good venue for their protests? While they have a right to do it, as unlike CK they are operating in public space and not doing it within the confines of their job, I think the venue is inappropriate and they are horrible people. You feel differently?
post #5828 of 6076

what about a fallen soldier protest at a funeral for a westboro member who was killed during a protest?

post #5829 of 6076
Time and space would end.
post #5830 of 6076

so good guy speech is exempt cuz they wouldn't pick the wrong venue but bad people speech should be curtailed for being bad.

post #5831 of 6076
So another attempt not to answer the question as someone wants to divide between "good guy" and "bad guy," which of course, assumes this dichotomy exists.
post #5832 of 6076

Guys, this is all stupid because any specific question can be answered with a simple algorithm.

 

1. Is it a law or government actor restricting speech or the speaker is on publicly owned property? If yes, violation of free speech.

 

2. Is it a private actor, such as a synagogue, professional organization, or business restricting speech or is the speaker on privately owned property?  If yes, it isn't a violation of free speech.

 

3. Is the speech immoral or inappropriate or offensive? See #1 and #2

post #5833 of 6076
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

In fairness, I can see -- at least in many communities -- how easy it would be for them to develop this on the job if they weren't hard-wired for it already. Some of that probably comes from the hyped up "thin blue line" feedback loop, but it's not without some basis in reality. All the more reason agencies -- dare I say "institutions" need to recognize those natural human tendencies and account for them in their training, policies, etc. (Which many presumably do, to varying extents.)

I think this idea should get more play in the current "conversation".

I'm not a cop but I know a few/have seen training videos/etc., and it seems that the dangerousness of armed civilians is emphasized to the point that it's not surprising cops fear for their lives the moment they think someone is armed. Would it be surprising for any of us to learn that cops are trained to "take no chances" when it comes to dealing with armed civilians (or, even, any civilian that is disobeying orders)? They've got plenty of dead cops to present on their Power Point slides on the day of that lesson.

I remember hearing about training they receive with regard to civilians armed with knives... The rule is something like, if the knife-wielder is within 15 feet, he can kill you faster than you can aim and shoot.
post #5834 of 6076

I don't even know how free speech was brought up in the first place as I thought this was about when/where protest is inappropriate. The original argument was that an accusation of improper venue is weak.

post #5835 of 6076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So another attempt not to answer the question as someone wants to divide between "good guy" and "bad guy," which of course, assumes this dichotomy exists.

 

You're assuming that with your examples.

 

(not your example)

1. Holocaust survivors protesting at a nazi funeral

2. Nazis protesting at a Holocaust survivor's funeral

 

You're making it sound like 2 is improper only as in immoral. Others are using improper as in ineffective in CK's case.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?