Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
308
Views

Re: 1st Voting Rights, Now Free Speech

308 Views
Message 31 of 37

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The big difference is Republicans use their political power to deny voting rights and silence opponents.

 

The ones protesting that abuse of political power are exercising "free speech" and so far, the violence has been instigated and paid for by the GOP.

 

Denying a podium and bullhorn to a speaker in a single location is considered a HUGE problem by the RW. But devoting an entire major media network to a single side of the debate is peachy. Perhaps if the Progressives got their own network, or the Fairness Doctrine were reestablished as the Law of the Land,  they wouldn't need to spend so much time keeping bullhorns out of the hands of pathalogical liars.


Here are the thugs you are defending:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwzffeICkP8

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
308
Views
Highlighted
Esteemed Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
314
Views

Re: 1st Voting Rights, Now Free Speech

314 Views
Message 32 of 37

GailL1 wrote:  
Seems to me that many of these rules are being placed for safety reasons - to protect the protestors and the public from a disaster. 

Sorry, it may seem that way to you but it doesn't seem so to the UN or the ACLU.  They see unConstitutional "laws" & the criminalization of peaceful protests.  Maybe read some of the details of their concerns.  

 

You know...could be just like those much-needed voter ids for that nonexistent voter fraud.    

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
314
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
321
Views

Re: 1st Voting Rights, Now Free Speech

321 Views
Message 33 of 37

You mean things like blocking roads, freeways and a motorist ACCIDENTALLY hits a demonstrator -

i.e. "if a driver "unintentionally" causes injury or death to someone blocking traffic on a roadway, then the driver will not be liable for damages; any drivers who intentionally targeted protesters would still be prosecuted." (North DaKota)

 

"Minnesota, Indiana and Iowa have moved to add laws specifically targeting roadway blocking"

 

In Minnesota,  a measure was introduced that would allow local governments to sue criminally convicted protesters for law enforcement costs.

 

Seems to me that many of these rules are being placed for safety reasons - to protect the protestors and the public from a disaster.

 

I believe that we have a Constitutional right to free speech but there are no rights as to where that free speech is to be done.  Permits can be secured and road closures can take place in a controlled manner..  Freeways should never be blocked for protesters - they could be hampering someones life or their livelihood.

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
321
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
323
Views

Re: 1st Voting Rights, Now Free Speech

323 Views
Message 34 of 37

The big difference is Republicans use their political power to deny voting rights and silence opponents.

 

The ones protesting that abuse of political power are exercising "free speech" and so far, the violence has been instigated and paid for by the GOP.

 

Denying a podium and bullhorn to a speaker in a single location is considered a HUGE problem by the RW. But devoting an entire major media network to a single side of the debate is peachy. Perhaps if the Progressives got their own network, or the Fairness Doctrine were reestablished as the Law of the Land,  they wouldn't need to spend so much time keeping bullhorns out of the hands of pathalogical liars.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
323
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
321
Views

Re: 1st Voting Rights, Now Free Speech

321 Views
Message 35 of 37

Are demonstrations, like parades, not subject to permits? This is done to protect the rights of both the demonstrators or paraders as well as non-participants. So, what is your thinking about such controls - "fascist"? - "a violation of free speech"?

 

How about "demonstrations" that interefer with the free speech of others? Are they not "fascist"? - "a violation of free speech"?

 

How about "demonstrations that include bricks, bats and Molatov cocktails" Would controlling them be "fascist? - "a violation of free speech"?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
321
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
369
Views

Re: 1st Voting Rights, Now Free Speech

369 Views
Message 36 of 37

   Some cities in Red States will ignore these specious orders.    Donald and his cabal, especially in GOP run states are attempting to shut down all avenues for people to express their opinions.

 

    As I quoted earlier, a guy that leads a Libertarian think tank said that Donald is essentially attempting to make the US into a 3rd World Nation, with an autocrat/dictator as leader.   

 

     it is quite amazing to listen to some of the staff of Republicans come up with all sorts of weird rules and warnings when people dare to go to the campaign offices or even the property in which the office resides.    One person tried to tell visitors that the space under an awning was not public property - except that the awning was over a public sidewalk.      They threaten to call police and demand that their office can only hold a small number of people or lock the doors to the office.     That behavior indicates that they are seriously afraid of hearing from actual constituents.      When people call on 'day of vote, they take no caller information , but then say that the information will be sent to the elected official, well except that they have no clue if the person was a constituent so the caller information can be trashed.    

 

      Some democracy that has been unleashed by Donald....NOT.

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
369
Views
Highlighted
Esteemed Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
372
Views
36
Replies

1st Voting Rights, Now Free Speech

372 Views
Message 37 of 37

The Right Wing & their fascist ways will stop at nothing to gain power.  They can't win the hearts and minds of Americans fairly and have to rely on undemocratic aspects of our Constitution that allow their numerical minority to garner more Congressional power than due based on votes.  Still that's not enough so they keep trying to snuff out the voting rights of the opposition.  Now with all the very visible protests against the current administration threatening them, they're trying to snuff out free speech too.

 

From the Guardian: 

  • "Anti-protest bills would 'attack right to speak out' under Donald Trump
    The ACLU says more than 30 bills have been introduced amid a huge swell of activism, prompting UN intervention over criminalization of peaceful protest

  •  

    More than 20 states have proposed bills that would crack down on protests and demonstrations since Donald Trump was elected, in a move that UN experts have branded “incompatible with US obligations under international human rights law”.

  •  

    The proposed laws would variously increase the penalties for protesting in large groups, ban protesters from wearing masks during demonstrations and, in some states, protect drivers from liability if they strike someone taking part in a protest.

  •  

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said more than 30 separate anti-protest bills have been introduced since 8 November in “an unprecedented level of hostility towards protesters in the 21st century”. Their introduction comes amid a huge increase in activism and engagement, much of it inspired by Trump’s election to the presidency."

     

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
372
Views
36
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Introducing jen43, one of our featured ACEs! Check out their profile and fill yours out, today!

Meet an ACE

Top Authors