Freedom of speech disappearing?

[Labor Syndicates]

And somebody has the right to call you those things, and to protest you being them.

Well there is where I think we disagree somewhat. You can protest someone being a racist to a point. If it is a private gathering and a protestor is told to leave then they must leave or if done in public it cannot get violent. Other than that yeah, protest away, it is a constitutionally protected right at least in America.

Oh, I see, when it's speech you don't like it's limited, but not when it's speech you do like.

[Arana]

And we have the right to call them out for it.

But that right don't include storming podiums, threatening speakers or yelling like infants.

Umm... yes, it does. There's no law against doing those things. Therefore we have the right to.

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

Disregard my prior points on self defence, I was thinking of American self defence laws, not English law, my mistake.

Even in American legal systems, I don't think "I punched the leftist because I heard stories about leftists punching rightists." holds up as a self-defense argument. Even "I punched Mr. Left because Mr. Progressive (an entirely different person) punched me." would hold up about as well as "I assaulted this guy named Jim because yesterday a different guy named Jim attacked me."

I would only punch someone if their was an immediate risk to my health. Such as I'm about to be mugged or someone's about to stabbed with a compass. Even then would prefer to block them

[Minzerland]

If that's your shtick...

I'm not even gay, but if Justin Trudeau wanted to date me, I don't know that I'd be able to say no...

I'd probably say, most likely shout, something along the lines of, 'F*ck off!'.

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

Well there is where I think we disagree somewhat. You can protest someone being a racist to a point. If it is a private gathering and a protestor is told to leave then they must leave or if done in public it cannot get violent. Other than that yeah, protest away, it is a constitutionally protected right at least in America.

Oh, I see, when it's speech you don't like it's limited, but not when it's speech you do like.

But if the gathering is held on private property protesters aren't allowed to just march in. By all means protest on the pavement [sidewalk] but not on someone's private property. Unless they let you in, obviously

[Annorax]

Well there is where I think we disagree somewhat. You can protest someone being a racist to a point. If it is a private gathering and a protestor is told to leave then they must leave or if done in public it cannot get violent. Other than that yeah, protest away, it is a constitutionally protected right at least in America.

Well it hasn't gotten violent. I don't know where you're seeing violence... aggression, certainly, but not violence.

There have been plenty of violent protests in the U.S. lately, mostly against Trump but some even against Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Sure, aggression is one thing but death threats is another.

[Aelex]

Umm... yes, it does. There's no law against doing those things. Therefore we have the right to.

I don't know for America but I do recall that in France people can and have been fined for storming political meetings, not that it happen often as we happen to be civilized people who value the Droits de L'Homme in their concepts rather than constantly trying to loop-hole them to justify our wrong-doings.

[Vassenor]

Even in American legal systems, I don't think "I punched the leftist because I heard stories about leftists punching rightists." holds up as a self-defense argument. Even "I punched Mr. Left because Mr. Progressive (an entirely different person) punched me." would hold up about as well as "I assaulted this guy named Jim because yesterday a different guy named Jim attacked me."

I would only punch someone if their was an immediate risk to my health. Such as I'm about to be mugged or someone's about to stabbed with a compass. Even then would prefer to block them

Reasonable force.

[Annorax]

But that right don't include storming podiums, threatening speakers or yelling like infants.

Umm... yes, it does. There's no law against doing those things. Therefore we have the right to.

No you don't actually. If it is a private function and you are asked to leave you must do so or you risk getting your wig split open by a cop for trespassing/failure to disperse.

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

But that right don't include storming podiums, threatening speakers or yelling like infants.

Umm... yes, it does. There's no law against doing those things. Therefore we have the right to.

Query: does this right to protest allow you to disrupt the lives of others, who aren't involved?

[url] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... moke-bomb/
[/url]

[Arana]

Umm... yes, it does. There's no law against doing those things. Therefore we have the right to.

No you don't actually. If it is a private function and you are asked to leave you must do so or you risk getting your wig split open by a cop for trespassing/failure to disperse.

If it's a private function. But he didn't specify a private function. And in most of the cases of this happening, it's a speech at a university, and the protesters are university students, and therefore not trespassing.

[Arana]

Umm... yes, it does. There's no law against doing those things. Therefore we have the right to.

Query: does this right to protest allow you to disrupt the lives of others, who aren't involved?

[url] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... moke-bomb/
[/url]

Disrupt them how? By being violent? Of course not. By inconveniencing them? Absolutely.

[Labor Syndicates]

Umm... yes, it does. There's no law against doing those things. Therefore we have the right to.

Query: does this right to protest allow you to disrupt the lives of others, who aren't involved?

[url] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... moke-bomb/
[/url]

The rioting and violence of the protests should be rejected, no doubt, but if this is about how the strike is affecting tourists, boo hoo. Freedom of speech--including the freedom of protest and strike--is not limited just because its exercise is inconvenient to others. Unless it's violent--which, I agree, this particular instance is, and it should be condemned and stopped for that--it's fine.

[Annorax]

No you don't actually. If it is a private function and you are asked to leave you must do so or you risk getting your wig split open by a cop for trespassing/failure to disperse.

If it's a private function. But he didn't specify a private function. And in most of the cases of this happening, it's a speech at a university, and the protesters are university students, and therefore not trespassing.

If it is at a university it is a private function. A person would still have to leave if they are asked to do so.

Now if we are out out in the wild/public yeah go ham.

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

Query: does this right to protest allow you to disrupt the lives of others, who aren't involved?

[url] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... moke-bomb/
[/url]

Disrupt them how? By being violent? Of course not. By inconveniencing them? Absolutely.

Huh. What if, theoretically, I came to your accommodation, and, while standing on a public footpath, protested about Hillary Clinton noisily , while you were trying to study for the most important exam of your life, and distracted you and kept you up. Would you still support my right to protest?

[Arana]

Disrupt them how? By being violent? Of course not. By inconveniencing them? Absolutely.

Huh. What if, theoretically, I came to your accommodation, and, while standing on a public footpath, protested about Hillary Clinton noisily , while you were trying to study for the most important exam of your life, and distracted you and kept you up. Would you still support my right to protest?

Yes. Absolutely. And when I was done studying, I might come down and join you.

[Labor Syndicates]

Disrupt them how? By being violent? Of course not. By inconveniencing them? Absolutely.

Huh. What if, theoretically, I came to your accommodation, and, while standing on a public footpath, protested about Hillary Clinton noisily , while you were trying to study for the most important exam of your life, and distracted you and kept you up. Would you still support my right to protest?

Yep, because we care about freedom of speech. Honestly, though, at that point I'd just get headphones on and block out the noise. Problem. Solved.

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

Huh. What if, theoretically, I came to your accommodation, and, while standing on a public footpath, protested about Hillary Clinton noisily , while you were trying to study for the most important exam of your life, and distracted you and kept you up. Would you still support my right to protest?

Yes. Absolutely. And when I was done studying, I might come down and join you.

*High Five*

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

Huh. What if, theoretically, I came to your accommodation, and, while standing on a public footpath, protested about Hillary Clinton noisily , while you were trying to study for the most important exam of your life, and distracted you and kept you up. Would you still support my right to protest?

Yep, because we care about freedom of speech. Honestly, though, at that point I'd just get headphones on and block out the noise. Problem. Solved.

Ah. Good point

[Labor Syndicates]

Yes. Absolutely. And when I was done studying, I might come down and join you.

*High Five*

Hey, I'd join you, too. Then again, me and Arana would probably be complaining about her support of global laissez-faire capitalism, war crimes, and betrayal of civil rights and worker's movements, while you'd be screaming about emails and corruption, but regardless, we all hate Clinton.

[Arana]

*High Five*

Hey, I'd join you, too. Then again, me and Arana would probably be complaining about her support of global laissez-faire capitalism, war crimes, and betrayal of civil rights and worker's movements, while you'd be screaming about emails and corruption, but regardless, we all hate Clinton.

Ah, hate. How it brings us all together.

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

Hey, I'd join you, too. Then again, me and Arana would probably be complaining about her support of global laissez-faire capitalism, war crimes, and betrayal of civil rights and worker's movements, while you'd be screaming about emails and corruption, but regardless, we all hate Clinton.

Ah, hate. How it brings us all together.

I would also be screaming about Benghazi and her covering up for Bill's affairs as well. But yes, quite

[Annorax]

Hey, I'd join you, too. Then again, me and Arana would probably be complaining about her support of global laissez-faire capitalism, war crimes, and betrayal of civil rights and worker's movements, while you'd be screaming about emails and corruption, but regardless, we all hate Clinton.

Ah, hate. How it brings us all together.

I find this all quite amusing.

The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy though.

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

Ah, hate. How it brings us all together.

I find this all quite amusing.

The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy though.

In the long term yes. But strategically it makes sense to have allies. A good example would be the USSR in WW2. They were our enemies
till operation Barbarossa started, and became enemies again at the end of ww2. But it was what killed the Nazis. And Bernie supporters can still defeat Hillary, but after the election we will be at each others throats again

[Labor Syndicates]

Ah, hate. How it brings us all together.

I find this all quite amusing.

The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy though.

OK, yeah, but we can get behind this one issue, right? We can get back to fighting later, right?