Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Had enough of Trump?
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 12, 2016, 11:19:31 PM3/12/16
to
Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
Bill Bowden
Mar 13, 2016, 12:47:07 AM3/13/16
to
"Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it Trump,
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who will
resolve the problem?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
wizardr...@msn.com
Mar 13, 2016, 1:14:11 AM3/13/16
to
Try blaming George Soros, as he's the guy who's sending a lot of the
low life goons to Trump's rallies in hopes of shutting them down. The Dems must be as scared of Trump as the Republican establishment. If he becomes president, a lot of applecarts are going to be knocked over and a lot of fat political hacks and lobbyists are going to find their gravy train screeching to a halt.
low life goons to Trump's rallies in hopes of shutting them down. The Dems must be as scared of Trump as the Republican establishment. If he becomes president, a lot of applecarts are going to be knocked over and a lot of fat political hacks and lobbyists are going to find their gravy train screeching to a halt.
El Castor
Mar 13, 2016, 4:07:11 AM3/13/16
to
assaulted someone, then of course they should be arrested. Wouldn't
you agree. In fact it looks like Trump's campaign manager laid hands
on a reporter at a previous rally, and may be arrested. I'm OK with
that. Are you?
Anyhow, I am not keen on Trump, but if the only choice was Hillary or
Bernie, I would vote for Trump -- so no, I haven't had enough.
BTW -- Are you aware of this?
"(CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday
that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice
about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change
deniers. “This matter has been discussed. We have received information
about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it
meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/ag-lynch-doj-has-discussed-whether-pursue-legal-action-against-climate
I find that much more troubling than Trump mouthing off. Don't you?
Lawrence Akutagawa
Mar 13, 2016, 4:27:32 AM3/13/16
to
"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
****** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******
I for one am waiting for The Donald to let loose on these
protesters/demonstrators at his rallies his own equivalent of the brown
shirts. As you may remember, the original ones back in the 20's into the
30's did a rather effective job of dispersing protesters and demonstrators
at various rallies back then. Should The Donald do this instead of using
those civilian type rent-a-security-man in his current approach, then watch
the fun and entertainment really begin! Imagine rank upon rank of men
similarly garbed and with clubs/bludgeons/baseball bats in hand
marching...not walking, but marching...in step towards those
protesters/demonstrators. The very sight of such The Donald pageantry would
certainly warm the very cockles of the heart of each and every supporter of
The Donald!
Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
I for one am waiting for The Donald to let loose on these
protesters/demonstrators at his rallies his own equivalent of the brown
shirts. As you may remember, the original ones back in the 20's into the
30's did a rather effective job of dispersing protesters and demonstrators
at various rallies back then. Should The Donald do this instead of using
those civilian type rent-a-security-man in his current approach, then watch
the fun and entertainment really begin! Imagine rank upon rank of men
similarly garbed and with clubs/bludgeons/baseball bats in hand
marching...not walking, but marching...in step towards those
protesters/demonstrators. The very sight of such The Donald pageantry would
certainly warm the very cockles of the heart of each and every supporter of
The Donald!
mg
Mar 13, 2016, 5:04:58 AM3/13/16
to
is it protected by the Constitution?
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 13, 2016, 6:00:40 AM3/13/16
to
On 3/12/2016 9:47 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>
> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it Trump,
> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who will
> resolve the problem?
We all agree that when someone rushes the stage, they get kicked out and
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>
> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it Trump,
> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who will
> resolve the problem?
are subject to arrest whether they are a protestor or not.
But as I read Trump, he might preemptively kick out protestors before
they disrupt his speeches or have only protestors arrested after they
disrupt and not others.
And to answer mg: as a general matter, the government can only proscribe
speech that disrupts when it is not based on the content of the speech.
Either arresting people before they disrupt or arresting only
protestors after they disrupt violates Freedom of Speech.
To Jeff: doesn't this strike you as Trump targeting people and opinions
he doesn't like - the things you accuse liberals of doing? I guess
Hillary is still worse in your eyes (at least for now - maybe a long
campaign will change your mind).
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 13, 2016, 6:15:06 AM3/13/16
to
On 3/13/2016 12:06 AM, El Castor wrote:
>
> BTW -- Are you aware of this?
> "(CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday
> that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice
> about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change
> deniers. “This matter has been discussed. We have received information
> about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it
> meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a
> Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations."
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/ag-lynch-doj-has-discussed-whether-pursue-legal-action-against-climate
>
> I find that much more troubling than Trump mouthing off. Don't you?
No. The question was limited to a very specific lie and its
>
> BTW -- Are you aware of this?
> "(CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday
> that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice
> about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change
> deniers. “This matter has been discussed. We have received information
> about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it
> meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a
> Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations."
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/ag-lynch-doj-has-discussed-whether-pursue-legal-action-against-climate
>
> I find that much more troubling than Trump mouthing off. Don't you?
circumstances that was analogized in your link - the tobacco industry
knowingly lying about the effects of smoking and the actions the
industry took in conjunction with that knowing falsehood.
http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit
In particular, such a lie could be actionable only if 1) the liar knew
he was lying and 2) the lie was used in false advertising or in some
other manner for gain.
Quoting Lynch: "We have received information about it and have referred
it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which
we could take action on."
So, Lynch was not referring to your garden variety climate change denier
like you.
chatnoir
Mar 13, 2016, 7:13:22 AM3/13/16
to
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:19:31 PM UTC-7, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
I say let him speak! Then the American people can decide! I am against Thugs of any strip disrupting free speech!
> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
Jim_Higgins
Mar 13, 2016, 7:38:37 AM3/13/16
to
Want to bet that Lynch and Hussein say Nothing about Chicago and Cincinnati?
--
Hussein Obama working hard to destroy America
Jim_Higgins
Mar 13, 2016, 7:39:20 AM3/13/16
to
rumpelstiltskin
Mar 13, 2016, 8:16:58 AM3/13/16
to
at all have objected to people shouting out at Bush or Cheney while
they were preaching their apologetics for the Iraq invasion.
Gary
Mar 13, 2016, 8:39:53 AM3/13/16
to
benefits your side -- is fine with you.
Werner
Mar 13, 2016, 10:50:24 AM3/13/16
to
Looks to me like the protesters want to stop Trump from speaking. Odd how different people see the same event completely differently. I personally don't favor Trump because he is as much an authoritarian as Obama but wouldn't think of NOT letting him speak. Those of you who call yourselves 'liberal' are just fooling yourselves.
El Castor
Mar 13, 2016, 1:04:16 PM3/13/16
to
criminal lie, then who knows? In any case, the spectacle of the DOJ
bringing even a losing case against deniers, will have a chilling
effect on climate oriented speech -- wouldn't you agree?
If Loretta Lynch can justify prosecution of Global Warming deniers,
what's next. Those, like myself who are critical of various aspect of
Islam or question Black intelligence? Perhaps my lies are inciting
violence? One or two liberal Supreme Court nominations, and ...
El Castor
Mar 13, 2016, 1:16:31 PM3/13/16
to
it, but it is the natural inclination of the Left to silence anyone
with whom they disagree. Josh would claim we are protected by the
Constitution, but it looks to me like we are one or two Supreme Court
appointments away from France or Denmark.
>Want to bet that Lynch and Hussein say Nothing about Chicago and Cincinnati?
that Trump is doing very little to calm the situation or rein in his
supporters. Time to start acting more presidential, and less Trump.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 13, 2016, 1:32:46 PM3/13/16
to
tobacco-oriented speech.
> If Loretta Lynch can justify prosecution of Global Warming deniers,
> what's next. Those, like myself who are critical of various aspect of
> Islam or question Black intelligence? Perhaps my lies are inciting
> violence? One or two liberal Supreme Court nominations, and ...
considered against climate change deniers is a RICO/commercial-speech
fraud case against the fossil-fuel energy industry - and can only be won
if the industry has knowingly lied (like the tobacco industry did).
Such a precedent would not extend to your parade of horribles, just like
the tobacco case did not do so.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 13, 2016, 1:41:57 PM3/13/16
to
On 3/13/2016 10:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
>
> More like Canadian and European socialism. Josh will vehemently deny
> it, but it is the natural inclination of the Left to silence anyone
> with whom they disagree. Josh would claim we are protected by the
> Constitution, but it looks to me like we are one or two Supreme Court
> appointments away from France or Denmark.
Re-posting for the upmteenth time (you are nothing if not consistent in
>
> More like Canadian and European socialism. Josh will vehemently deny
> it, but it is the natural inclination of the Left to silence anyone
> with whom they disagree. Josh would claim we are protected by the
> Constitution, but it looks to me like we are one or two Supreme Court
> appointments away from France or Denmark.
ignoring evidence). Liberals on the Court are more protective of
Freedom of Speech than conservatives.
http://volokh.com/2012/11/19/are-liberal-or-conservative-justices-more-likely-to-protect-hate-speech/
(The link does not always respond anymore in a timely fashion).
wizardr...@msn.com
Mar 13, 2016, 2:46:30 PM3/13/16
to
I didn't realize that Trump supporters were attending rallies of the other candidates and causing disruptions.
wizardr...@msn.com
Mar 13, 2016, 2:54:35 PM3/13/16
to
Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?" Along the years, it's rather apparent that liberals have redefined the spirit of freedom of speech.
El Castor
Mar 13, 2016, 4:53:36 PM3/13/16
to
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:32:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
I don't share your "optimism". Tobacco was and is an unpleasant drug
(that killed my mother at age 51, by the way). You might not agree,
but I believe warming is a political tool of the Left that engenders
far more support and animus from your side of the aisle than tobacco
ever did. If there were prosecutions, what scientist would want to
publish on the subject if he had ever had even a remote association to
an oil company, coal company, automobile company, or someone who did?
>> If Loretta Lynch can justify prosecution of Global Warming deniers,
>> what's next. Those, like myself who are critical of various aspect of
>> Islam or question Black intelligence? Perhaps my lies are inciting
>> violence? One or two liberal Supreme Court nominations, and ...
>
>I don't think you understood my response. The only case being
>considered against climate change deniers is a RICO/commercial-speech
>fraud case against the fossil-fuel energy industry - and can only be won
>if the industry has knowingly lied (like the tobacco industry did).
While you may consider Global Warming to be "settled science" in the
same sense as the tobacco connection to cancer and heart disease, I do
not. Lying about global warming is on a par with lying about
evolution, Black IQs, or the origin of the universe. It would be
nothing more than a political witch hunt. I can point you at
individuals demanding prison terms or even the death penalty for
deniers like myself.
>Such a precedent would not extend to your parade of horribles, just like
>the tobacco case did not do so.
Maybe so and maybe not, but I assure you there are many in your camp
who would love to find a way. Even the term "denier" is intended as an
insult -- a comparison to holocaust deniers. Your "parade of
horribles" is an even deeper reach into the Left's slime bucket. Tsk,
tsk.
(that killed my mother at age 51, by the way). You might not agree,
but I believe warming is a political tool of the Left that engenders
far more support and animus from your side of the aisle than tobacco
ever did. If there were prosecutions, what scientist would want to
publish on the subject if he had ever had even a remote association to
an oil company, coal company, automobile company, or someone who did?
>> If Loretta Lynch can justify prosecution of Global Warming deniers,
>> what's next. Those, like myself who are critical of various aspect of
>> Islam or question Black intelligence? Perhaps my lies are inciting
>> violence? One or two liberal Supreme Court nominations, and ...
>
>I don't think you understood my response. The only case being
>considered against climate change deniers is a RICO/commercial-speech
>fraud case against the fossil-fuel energy industry - and can only be won
>if the industry has knowingly lied (like the tobacco industry did).
same sense as the tobacco connection to cancer and heart disease, I do
not. Lying about global warming is on a par with lying about
evolution, Black IQs, or the origin of the universe. It would be
nothing more than a political witch hunt. I can point you at
individuals demanding prison terms or even the death penalty for
deniers like myself.
>Such a precedent would not extend to your parade of horribles, just like
>the tobacco case did not do so.
who would love to find a way. Even the term "denier" is intended as an
insult -- a comparison to holocaust deniers. Your "parade of
horribles" is an even deeper reach into the Left's slime bucket. Tsk,
tsk.
mg
Mar 13, 2016, 5:14:42 PM3/13/16
to
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 07:39:19 -0400, Jim_Higgins
<gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/13/16 5:04 AM, mg wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:19:28 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>>
>> Your the legal expert. Is disrupting political speeches illegal, or
>> is it protected by the Constitution?
>>
>
>Lynch & Hussein won't say a word-Black Thugs Matter.
>
If it's legal, that means that any current, or future candidate for
<gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/13/16 5:04 AM, mg wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:19:28 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>>
>> Your the legal expert. Is disrupting political speeches illegal, or
>> is it protected by the Constitution?
>>
>
>Lynch & Hussein won't say a word-Black Thugs Matter.
>
political office, and especially a presidential candidate, could
have his political rallies disrupted by a highly motivated
opposition group. There are other types of speeches that might be
pertinent to this issue, also. Controversial speakers at
universities come to mind, for example, and what about Hillary's
$250,000/hour speaches, as another example? Or, how about a
controversial movie or broadway play?
El Castor
Mar 13, 2016, 5:24:17 PM3/13/16
to
Your protests for the umpteenth time fall on the same deaf ears. I
only have to look at the actions of your fellow liberals around the
world, and even on our own college campuses, to see the truth.
Surprisingly, the editors of the New York Times agree with me,
although not surprisingly from a decidedly left wing viewpoint.
"From ‘Je Suis Charlie’ to Attacks on Free Speech"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/opinion/from-je-suis-charlie-to-attacks-on-free-speech.html?_r=0
And an interesting video on the subject ...
"Is Free Speech Under Attack in America?
Matt Welch on the obstacles facing the First Amendment"
http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/04/24/is-free-speech-under-attack-in-america
mg
Mar 13, 2016, 7:12:13 PM3/13/16
to
the case of the "Irvine 11", for example:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/should-heckling-be-illegal
islander
Mar 13, 2016, 7:41:05 PM3/13/16
to
disrupted by the organized efforts of Freedom Works?
mg
Mar 13, 2016, 10:32:53 PM3/13/16
to
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:41:04 -0700, islander <no...@priracy.com>
wrote:
I never heard of that, but as I said in a previous post, human
nature being what it is, people will tend to see Freedom of Speech
as an absolute when it benefits their political party, or their
ideology, or their religion, for example, but when it doesn't, they
won't.
No matter how True Believers, see the issue, however, the law is the
law until someone changes it. So, if you want to argue about what
the law is, that's one thing and if you want to argue about how it
should be changed, that's another.
----------------------------------------------
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm
for justice, no matter who it's for or against.
--Malcolm X
wrote:
nature being what it is, people will tend to see Freedom of Speech
as an absolute when it benefits their political party, or their
ideology, or their religion, for example, but when it doesn't, they
won't.
No matter how True Believers, see the issue, however, the law is the
law until someone changes it. So, if you want to argue about what
the law is, that's one thing and if you want to argue about how it
should be changed, that's another.
----------------------------------------------
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm
for justice, no matter who it's for or against.
--Malcolm X
Bill Bowden
Mar 13, 2016, 11:02:56 PM3/13/16
to
news:nc3dib$d6s$1...@dont-email.me...
a party and pay all the bills, you have a right to determine who comes to
the party and who doesn't. .If someone comes in uninvited, you have a right
to tell them to leave.
> On 3/12/2016 9:47 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>
>> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it
>> Trump,
>> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who
>> will
>> resolve the problem?
>
> We all agree that when someone rushes the stage, they get kicked out and
> are subject to arrest whether they are a protestor or not.
>
> But as I read Trump, he might preemptively kick out protestors before they
> disrupt his speeches or have only protestors arrested after they disrupt
> and not others.
>
I think it's Trump's party and he has a right to set the rules. If you have
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>
>> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it
>> Trump,
>> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who
>> will
>> resolve the problem?
>
> We all agree that when someone rushes the stage, they get kicked out and
> are subject to arrest whether they are a protestor or not.
>
> But as I read Trump, he might preemptively kick out protestors before they
> disrupt his speeches or have only protestors arrested after they disrupt
> and not others.
>
a party and pay all the bills, you have a right to determine who comes to
the party and who doesn't. .If someone comes in uninvited, you have a right
to tell them to leave.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 14, 2016, 3:50:42 AM3/14/16
to
On 3/13/2016 4:12 PM, mg wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 14, 2016, 3:51:57 AM3/14/16
to
On 3/13/2016 9:00 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:nc3dib$d6s$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 3/12/2016 9:47 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>>
>>> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it
>>> Trump,
>>> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who
>>> will
>>> resolve the problem?
>>
>> We all agree that when someone rushes the stage, they get kicked out and
>> are subject to arrest whether they are a protestor or not.
>>
>> But as I read Trump, he might preemptively kick out protestors before they
>> disrupt his speeches or have only protestors arrested after they disrupt
>> and not others.
>>
>
> I think it's Trump's party and he has a right to set the rules. If you have
> a party and pay all the bills, you have a right to determine who comes to
> the party and who doesn't. .If someone comes in uninvited, you have a right
> to tell them to leave.
I agree, but Trump wants to use the government to arrest the protestors
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:nc3dib$d6s$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 3/12/2016 9:47 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>>
>>> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it
>>> Trump,
>>> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who
>>> will
>>> resolve the problem?
>>
>> We all agree that when someone rushes the stage, they get kicked out and
>> are subject to arrest whether they are a protestor or not.
>>
>> But as I read Trump, he might preemptively kick out protestors before they
>> disrupt his speeches or have only protestors arrested after they disrupt
>> and not others.
>>
>
> I think it's Trump's party and he has a right to set the rules. If you have
> a party and pay all the bills, you have a right to determine who comes to
> the party and who doesn't. .If someone comes in uninvited, you have a right
> to tell them to leave.
and have his supporters sucker-punch them.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 14, 2016, 3:55:16 AM3/14/16
to
On 3/13/2016 1:52 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:32:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:32:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>
>> I don't think you understood my response. The only case being
>> considered against climate change deniers is a RICO/commercial-speech
>> fraud case against the fossil-fuel energy industry - and can only be won
>> if the industry has knowingly lied (like the tobacco industry did).
>
> While you may consider Global Warming to be "settled science"
The RICO case can only be made if the corporation believes it is settled
>> considered against climate change deniers is a RICO/commercial-speech
>> fraud case against the fossil-fuel energy industry - and can only be won
>> if the industry has knowingly lied (like the tobacco industry did).
>
> While you may consider Global Warming to be "settled science"
science and commits fraud anyway. If the corporation honestly is a
climate-change denier (however stupid that may be), they can't be
prosecuted - which is why Lynch said she can only have the FBI look into
whether the criteria for prosecution have been met.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 14, 2016, 3:58:21 AM3/14/16
to
On 3/13/2016 2:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:41:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2016 10:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>
>>> More like Canadian and European socialism. Josh will vehemently deny
>>> it, but it is the natural inclination of the Left to silence anyone
>>> with whom they disagree. Josh would claim we are protected by the
>>> Constitution, but it looks to me like we are one or two Supreme Court
>>> appointments away from France or Denmark.
>>
>> Re-posting for the upmteenth time (you are nothing if not consistent in
>> ignoring evidence). Liberals on the Court are more protective of
>> Freedom of Speech than conservatives.
>>
>> http://volokh.com/2012/11/19/are-liberal-or-conservative-justices-more-likely-to-protect-hate-speech/
>>
>> (The link does not always respond anymore in a timely fashion).
>>
> Oh, so freedom of speech is "settled science", not to be questioned??
Huh?
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:41:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2016 10:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>
>>> More like Canadian and European socialism. Josh will vehemently deny
>>> it, but it is the natural inclination of the Left to silence anyone
>>> with whom they disagree. Josh would claim we are protected by the
>>> Constitution, but it looks to me like we are one or two Supreme Court
>>> appointments away from France or Denmark.
>>
>> Re-posting for the upmteenth time (you are nothing if not consistent in
>> ignoring evidence). Liberals on the Court are more protective of
>> Freedom of Speech than conservatives.
>>
>> http://volokh.com/2012/11/19/are-liberal-or-conservative-justices-more-likely-to-protect-hate-speech/
>>
>> (The link does not always respond anymore in a timely fashion).
>>
> Oh, so freedom of speech is "settled science", not to be questioned??
> Your protests for the umpteenth time fall on the same deaf ears.
> And an interesting video on the subject ...
> "Is Free Speech Under Attack in America?
> Matt Welch on the obstacles facing the First Amendment"
> http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/04/24/is-free-speech-under-attack-in-america
El Castor
Mar 14, 2016, 5:00:43 AM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:58:19 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
wouldn't be my beliefs. I realize that may be a foreign concept to
you, but you should try it sometime.
>> And an interesting video on the subject ...
>> "Is Free Speech Under Attack in America?
>> Matt Welch on the obstacles facing the First Amendment"
>> http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/04/24/is-free-speech-under-attack-in-america
>
>30 minutes? Please summarize.
Watch it and refuse to learn or don't watch it and refuse to learn.
Your choice.
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 3/13/2016 2:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:41:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2016 10:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More like Canadian and European socialism. Josh will vehemently deny
>>>> it, but it is the natural inclination of the Left to silence anyone
>>>> with whom they disagree. Josh would claim we are protected by the
>>>> Constitution, but it looks to me like we are one or two Supreme Court
>>>> appointments away from France or Denmark.
>>>
>>> Re-posting for the upmteenth time (you are nothing if not consistent in
>>> ignoring evidence). Liberals on the Court are more protective of
>>> Freedom of Speech than conservatives.
>>>
>>> http://volokh.com/2012/11/19/are-liberal-or-conservative-justices-more-likely-to-protect-hate-speech/
>>>
>>> (The link does not always respond anymore in a timely fashion).
>>>
>> Oh, so freedom of speech is "settled science", not to be questioned??
>
>Huh?
>
>> Your protests for the umpteenth time fall on the same deaf ears.
>
>You mean data that do not support your beliefs fall on deaf ears.
If I didn't believe I had ample data to support my beliefs, they
>On 3/13/2016 2:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:41:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2016 10:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More like Canadian and European socialism. Josh will vehemently deny
>>>> it, but it is the natural inclination of the Left to silence anyone
>>>> with whom they disagree. Josh would claim we are protected by the
>>>> Constitution, but it looks to me like we are one or two Supreme Court
>>>> appointments away from France or Denmark.
>>>
>>> Re-posting for the upmteenth time (you are nothing if not consistent in
>>> ignoring evidence). Liberals on the Court are more protective of
>>> Freedom of Speech than conservatives.
>>>
>>> http://volokh.com/2012/11/19/are-liberal-or-conservative-justices-more-likely-to-protect-hate-speech/
>>>
>>> (The link does not always respond anymore in a timely fashion).
>>>
>> Oh, so freedom of speech is "settled science", not to be questioned??
>
>Huh?
>
>> Your protests for the umpteenth time fall on the same deaf ears.
>
>You mean data that do not support your beliefs fall on deaf ears.
wouldn't be my beliefs. I realize that may be a foreign concept to
you, but you should try it sometime.
>> And an interesting video on the subject ...
>> "Is Free Speech Under Attack in America?
>> Matt Welch on the obstacles facing the First Amendment"
>> http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/04/24/is-free-speech-under-attack-in-america
>
>30 minutes? Please summarize.
Your choice.
El Castor
Mar 14, 2016, 5:10:19 AM3/14/16
to
evidence that refutes or weakens a warming theory and discusses with
another scientist ways to hide that evidence, perhaps in an email,
could he be prosecuted? If he was a recipient of federal grant money,
would that impact his theoretical criminal liability?
Gary
Mar 14, 2016, 8:27:09 AM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:50:41 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
You can't "escort" some hoodlum who is struggling and cursing. Like
most of those thugs I saw on TV.
most of those thugs I saw on TV.
mg
Mar 14, 2016, 9:02:18 AM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:50:41 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Will that solve the problem, though? In the case of the Irvine 11,
the speaker had to stop speaking and leave.
the speaker had to stop speaking and leave.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 14, 2016, 12:24:52 PM3/14/16
to
On 3/14/2016 2:00 AM, El Castor wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:58:19 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2016 2:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:41:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2016 10:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> More like Canadian and European socialism. Josh will vehemently deny
>>>>> it, but it is the natural inclination of the Left to silence anyone
>>>>> with whom they disagree. Josh would claim we are protected by the
>>>>> Constitution, but it looks to me like we are one or two Supreme Court
>>>>> appointments away from France or Denmark.
>>>>
>>>> Re-posting for the upmteenth time (you are nothing if not consistent in
>>>> ignoring evidence). Liberals on the Court are more protective of
>>>> Freedom of Speech than conservatives.
>>>>
>>>> http://volokh.com/2012/11/19/are-liberal-or-conservative-justices-more-likely-to-protect-hate-speech/
>>>>
>>>> (The link does not always respond anymore in a timely fashion).
>>>>
>>> Oh, so freedom of speech is "settled science", not to be questioned??
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>> Your protests for the umpteenth time fall on the same deaf ears.
>>
>> You mean data that do not support your beliefs fall on deaf ears.
>
> If I didn't believe I had ample data to support my beliefs, they
> wouldn't be my beliefs. I realize that may be a foreign concept to
> you, but you should try it sometime.
No, I would not like to try relying only on old data that support my
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:58:19 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2016 2:23 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:41:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2016 10:15 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> More like Canadian and European socialism. Josh will vehemently deny
>>>>> it, but it is the natural inclination of the Left to silence anyone
>>>>> with whom they disagree. Josh would claim we are protected by the
>>>>> Constitution, but it looks to me like we are one or two Supreme Court
>>>>> appointments away from France or Denmark.
>>>>
>>>> Re-posting for the upmteenth time (you are nothing if not consistent in
>>>> ignoring evidence). Liberals on the Court are more protective of
>>>> Freedom of Speech than conservatives.
>>>>
>>>> http://volokh.com/2012/11/19/are-liberal-or-conservative-justices-more-likely-to-protect-hate-speech/
>>>>
>>>> (The link does not always respond anymore in a timely fashion).
>>>>
>>> Oh, so freedom of speech is "settled science", not to be questioned??
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>> Your protests for the umpteenth time fall on the same deaf ears.
>>
>> You mean data that do not support your beliefs fall on deaf ears.
>
> If I didn't believe I had ample data to support my beliefs, they
> wouldn't be my beliefs. I realize that may be a foreign concept to
> you, but you should try it sometime.
beliefs and closing my mind to new data.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 14, 2016, 12:28:14 PM3/14/16
to
the evidence to gain something (e.g., make money in the stock of a green
energy company), he might be prosecuted.
> If he was a recipient of federal grant money,
> would that impact his theoretical criminal liability?
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 14, 2016, 12:32:34 PM3/14/16
to
the First Amendment to preemptively shut down protests.
Gary
Mar 14, 2016, 1:20:26 PM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:32:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
There is a difference between "protesting" and disrupting. They can
stand outside with their little signs and protest Trump being in their
town. But the auditorium is rented by Trump and paid for by his
supporters. Protesters have no constitutional right to go in and
disturb things so much the people cannot hear what the came to hear.
The right to disturb your opponents meeting is similar to the right to
scream "fire!" in a crowded theater. It does not exist. But ....
I'm sure minorites think it exists. (Thinking is not their strong
suit)
stand outside with their little signs and protest Trump being in their
town. But the auditorium is rented by Trump and paid for by his
supporters. Protesters have no constitutional right to go in and
disturb things so much the people cannot hear what the came to hear.
The right to disturb your opponents meeting is similar to the right to
scream "fire!" in a crowded theater. It does not exist. But ....
I'm sure minorites think it exists. (Thinking is not their strong
suit)
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 14, 2016, 1:25:31 PM3/14/16
to
On 3/14/2016 10:20 AM, Gary wrote:
>
> There is a difference between "protesting" and disrupting. They can
> stand outside with their little signs and protest Trump being in their
> town. But the auditorium is rented by Trump and paid for by his
> supporters. Protesters have no constitutional right to go in and
> disturb things so much the people cannot hear what the came to hear.
If the rally is held in a public place, Trump cannot keep people out as
>
> There is a difference between "protesting" and disrupting. They can
> stand outside with their little signs and protest Trump being in their
> town. But the auditorium is rented by Trump and paid for by his
> supporters. Protesters have no constitutional right to go in and
> disturb things so much the people cannot hear what the came to hear.
a private citizen, and the First Amendment precludes the government from
doing so on his behalf. If Trump wants to rent a private hall and
require membership to get in, he could do that.
> The right to disturb your opponents meeting is similar to the right to
> scream "fire!" in a crowded theater. It does not exist.
disruption.
Joliet Jake
Mar 14, 2016, 1:27:36 PM3/14/16
to
Trump rallies are "disrupted". I bet there are a whole of Jews who
wished Hitler had been disrupted.
Gary, if Trump wins, say bye bye to your SSA or VA check. Say good bye
to VA or Medicare health coverage. Is that what you want, a country with
a few rich folks running everything and the rest dirt poor?
--
Joliet Jake
Gary
Mar 14, 2016, 2:48:01 PM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:27:31 +0100, Joliet Jake <bl...@brothers.neth>
wrote:
How can I be a racist ? I freely admit the Asians are smarter than
we are.
> I bet there are a whole of Jews who wished Hitler had been disrupted.
A lot of Southerners wish those damned abolitionists had been
disrupted. But ... we must obey the law.
>Gary, if Trump wins, say bye bye to your SSA or VA check. Say good bye
>to VA or Medicare health coverage. Is that what you want, a country with
>a few rich folks running everything and the rest dirt poor?
Our country has been run by a few rich people since the Civil War.
The large planters and the big Bankers are who started that war.
wrote:
we are.
> I bet there are a whole of Jews who wished Hitler had been disrupted.
disrupted. But ... we must obey the law.
>Gary, if Trump wins, say bye bye to your SSA or VA check. Say good bye
>to VA or Medicare health coverage. Is that what you want, a country with
>a few rich folks running everything and the rest dirt poor?
The large planters and the big Bankers are who started that war.
Gary
Mar 14, 2016, 2:50:46 PM3/14/16
to
to throw a tomato -- knock him down !" I agree with him.
Joliet Jake
Mar 14, 2016, 3:27:51 PM3/14/16
to
Gary wrote:
>> Gary, if Trump wins, say bye bye to your SSA or VA check. Say good bye
>> >to VA or Medicare health coverage. Is that what you want, a country with
>> >a few rich folks running everything and the rest dirt poor?
> Our country has been run by a few rich people since the Civil War.
> The large planters and the big Bankers are who started that war.
I'm talking about much more severe than that. It'll make feudalism look
>> Gary, if Trump wins, say bye bye to your SSA or VA check. Say good bye
>> >to VA or Medicare health coverage. Is that what you want, a country with
>> >a few rich folks running everything and the rest dirt poor?
> Our country has been run by a few rich people since the Civil War.
> The large planters and the big Bankers are who started that war.
democratic.
--
Joliet Jake
mg
Mar 14, 2016, 4:38:03 PM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:32:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think that any other "democracy" in the world can hold a
candle to us Americans when it comes to the wide variety of ways
that we have dreamt up to subvert democracy and employ dirty tricks
in political campaigns.
In this specific, particular case, however, once the candidate
becomes aware that there is an organized effort to employ
potentially, or presumably, illegal activities to disrupt his
speeches and campaign rallies, there are undoubtedly a variety of
counter measures that he can take. I think that the most important
issues, though, is whether the law is on his side and whether the
activity has effected his popularity. With both those issues, Trump
is apparently the winner.
candle to us Americans when it comes to the wide variety of ways
that we have dreamt up to subvert democracy and employ dirty tricks
in political campaigns.
In this specific, particular case, however, once the candidate
becomes aware that there is an organized effort to employ
potentially, or presumably, illegal activities to disrupt his
speeches and campaign rallies, there are undoubtedly a variety of
counter measures that he can take. I think that the most important
issues, though, is whether the law is on his side and whether the
activity has effected his popularity. With both those issues, Trump
is apparently the winner.
El Castor
Mar 14, 2016, 5:45:26 PM3/14/16
to
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 03:00:37 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 3/12/2016 9:47 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>
>> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it Trump,
>> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who will
>> resolve the problem?
>
>We all agree that when someone rushes the stage, they get kicked out and
>are subject to arrest whether they are a protestor or not.
>
>But as I read Trump, he might preemptively kick out protestors before
>they disrupt his speeches or have only protestors arrested after they
>disrupt and not others.
>
>And to answer mg: as a general matter, the government can only proscribe
>speech that disrupts when it is not based on the content of the speech.
> Either arresting people before they disrupt or arresting only
>protestors after they disrupt violates Freedom of Speech.
The law is the law, but disruption deliberately designed to prevent
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 3/12/2016 9:47 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>
>> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it Trump,
>> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who will
>> resolve the problem?
>
>We all agree that when someone rushes the stage, they get kicked out and
>are subject to arrest whether they are a protestor or not.
>
>But as I read Trump, he might preemptively kick out protestors before
>they disrupt his speeches or have only protestors arrested after they
>disrupt and not others.
>
>And to answer mg: as a general matter, the government can only proscribe
>speech that disrupts when it is not based on the content of the speech.
> Either arresting people before they disrupt or arresting only
>protestors after they disrupt violates Freedom of Speech.
the free speech of others seems to my untutored mind to be wrong.
Sometimes, as the old saying goes, the law is an ass. Can I take an
air horn to a Hillary rally?
>To Jeff: doesn't this strike you as Trump targeting people and opinions
>he doesn't like - the things you accuse liberals of doing? I guess
>Hillary is still worse in your eyes (at least for now - maybe a long
>campaign will change your mind).
chosen the site of his Chicago rally to attract large numbers of left
wing loons -- and the commotion and publicity that ensued. If so,
shame on him -- and them.
I see a lot of similarities between Trump and Hillary -- two
individuals with enormous egos that want to be president for only one
reason -- to feed that ego.
That said, I have very little patience with demonstrators who shout,
scream and provoke. If in doing so they break the law, they should be
arrested. Certainly striking someone should be grounds for arrest.
Wouldn't you agree.
I was at a meeting to protest something that the Golden Gate Bridge
District was trying to do. I sat quietly in the second row with a sign
in my lap -- one of many doing the same. It wasn't blocking anyone's
view, but it could be seen from the stage. In front of me sat a member
of the Burton political dynasty. He turned around and ordered me to
put down the sign. I refused. He said, "Do you know who I am!". I said
I didn't care and asked him to turn around. He refused. I said, fine,
I will stare at you until you turn around. And I did, without a word
or a blink. It went on for nearly a minute. He finally gave up and
turned around. No shouting, screaming, or violence -- which I suspect
was what he wanted. (-8
El Castor
Mar 14, 2016, 5:53:30 PM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:28:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Loretta would ever seek to prosecute, and I wouldn't expect her to.
BTW -- I see Al Gore has done rather well in the warming business --
to the tune of $200 million.
>> If he was a recipient of federal grant money,
>> would that impact his theoretical criminal liability?
>
>I don't know what the law says about that topic.
Many warming scientists have received enormous amounts of grant money
from the government. If that money could be shown to have influenced
their findings ...?
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 3/14/2016 2:09 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:55:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2016 1:52 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:32:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you understood my response. The only case being
>>>>> considered against climate change deniers is a RICO/commercial-speech
>>>>> fraud case against the fossil-fuel energy industry - and can only be won
>>>>> if the industry has knowingly lied (like the tobacco industry did).
>>>>
>>>> While you may consider Global Warming to be "settled science"
>>>
>>> The RICO case can only be made if the corporation believes it is settled
>>> science and commits fraud anyway. If the corporation honestly is a
>>> climate-change denier (however stupid that may be), they can't be
>>> prosecuted - which is why Lynch said she can only have the FBI look into
>>> whether the criteria for prosecution have been met.
>>
>> Since you are an expert in these matters, if a scientist discovers
>> evidence that refutes or weakens a warming theory and discusses with
>> another scientist ways to hide that evidence, perhaps in an email,
>> could he be prosecuted?
>
>If he honestly believes the data says what you say it says, and hides
>the evidence to gain something (e.g., make money in the stock of a green
>energy company), he might be prosecuted.
>
It is possible there has arguably been such a case, but I doubt
>On 3/14/2016 2:09 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:55:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2016 1:52 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:32:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you understood my response. The only case being
>>>>> considered against climate change deniers is a RICO/commercial-speech
>>>>> fraud case against the fossil-fuel energy industry - and can only be won
>>>>> if the industry has knowingly lied (like the tobacco industry did).
>>>>
>>>> While you may consider Global Warming to be "settled science"
>>>
>>> The RICO case can only be made if the corporation believes it is settled
>>> science and commits fraud anyway. If the corporation honestly is a
>>> climate-change denier (however stupid that may be), they can't be
>>> prosecuted - which is why Lynch said she can only have the FBI look into
>>> whether the criteria for prosecution have been met.
>>
>> Since you are an expert in these matters, if a scientist discovers
>> evidence that refutes or weakens a warming theory and discusses with
>> another scientist ways to hide that evidence, perhaps in an email,
>> could he be prosecuted?
>
>If he honestly believes the data says what you say it says, and hides
>the evidence to gain something (e.g., make money in the stock of a green
>energy company), he might be prosecuted.
>
Loretta would ever seek to prosecute, and I wouldn't expect her to.
BTW -- I see Al Gore has done rather well in the warming business --
to the tune of $200 million.
>> If he was a recipient of federal grant money,
>> would that impact his theoretical criminal liability?
>
>I don't know what the law says about that topic.
from the government. If that money could be shown to have influenced
their findings ...?
El Castor
Mar 14, 2016, 9:37:23 PM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:24:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Hmmm, you mean new data like Loretta Lynch going after Warming deniers
or the FBI going after Apple?
or the FBI going after Apple?
Bill Bowden
Mar 14, 2016, 11:31:04 PM3/14/16
to
news:nc5qd0$ggp$2...@dont-email.me...
The old white guy doing the sucker-punching is 78 years old against a young
black guy of 26. Sounds like the liberal media is exaggerating the whole
story.
black guy of 26. Sounds like the liberal media is exaggerating the whole
story.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 15, 2016, 3:41:50 AM3/15/16
to
On 3/14/2016 2:44 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 03:00:37 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 03:00:37 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>
>> And to answer mg: as a general matter, the government can only proscribe
>> speech that disrupts when it is not based on the content of the speech.
>> Either arresting people before they disrupt or arresting only
>> protestors after they disrupt violates Freedom of Speech.
>
> The law is the law, but disruption deliberately designed to prevent
> the free speech of others seems to my untutored mind to be wrong.
I agree.
>> speech that disrupts when it is not based on the content of the speech.
>> Either arresting people before they disrupt or arresting only
>> protestors after they disrupt violates Freedom of Speech.
>
> The law is the law, but disruption deliberately designed to prevent
> the free speech of others seems to my untutored mind to be wrong.
> Sometimes, as the old saying goes, the law is an ass. Can I take an
> air horn to a Hillary rally?
> That said, I have very little patience with demonstrators who shout,
> scream and provoke. If in doing so they break the law, they should be
> arrested. Certainly striking someone should be grounds for arrest.
> Wouldn't you agree.
> I was at a meeting to protest something that the Golden Gate Bridge
> District was trying to do. I sat quietly in the second row with a sign
> in my lap -- one of many doing the same. It wasn't blocking anyone's
> view, but it could be seen from the stage. In front of me sat a member
> of the Burton political dynasty. He turned around and ordered me to
> put down the sign. I refused. He said, "Do you know who I am!". I said
> I didn't care and asked him to turn around. He refused. I said, fine,
> I will stare at you until you turn around. And I did, without a word
> or a blink. It went on for nearly a minute. He finally gave up and
> turned around. No shouting, screaming, or violence -- which I suspect
> was what he wanted. (-8
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 15, 2016, 3:44:28 AM3/15/16
to
On 3/14/2016 6:36 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:24:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:24:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>
>> No, I would not like to try relying only on old data that support my
>> beliefs and closing my mind to new data.
>
> Hmmm, you mean new data like Loretta Lynch going after Warming deniers
> or the FBI going after Apple?
I already explained that Lynch is doing no such thing. I haven't been
>> beliefs and closing my mind to new data.
>
> Hmmm, you mean new data like Loretta Lynch going after Warming deniers
> or the FBI going after Apple?
following Apple and have no opinion on the matter.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 15, 2016, 3:45:46 AM3/15/16
to
On 3/14/2016 1:37 PM, mg wrote:
>
> In this specific, particular case, however, once the candidate
> becomes aware that there is an organized effort to employ
> potentially, or presumably, illegal activities to disrupt his
> speeches and campaign rallies, there are undoubtedly a variety of
> counter measures that he can take. I think that the most important
> issues, though, is whether the law is on his side and whether the
> activity has effected his popularity. With both those issues, Trump
> is apparently the winner.
I'm not so sure that Trump has the law on his side. Trump might be
>
> In this specific, particular case, however, once the candidate
> becomes aware that there is an organized effort to employ
> potentially, or presumably, illegal activities to disrupt his
> speeches and campaign rallies, there are undoubtedly a variety of
> counter measures that he can take. I think that the most important
> issues, though, is whether the law is on his side and whether the
> activity has effected his popularity. With both those issues, Trump
> is apparently the winner.
winning during the primaries, but it might backfire in the general.
El Castor
Mar 15, 2016, 3:55:07 AM3/15/16
to
then Trumps big mouth seems to attract them.
El Castor
Mar 15, 2016, 3:58:42 AM3/15/16
to
political witch hunt -- maybe not to you, but certainly to me.
mg
Mar 15, 2016, 4:48:58 AM3/15/16
to
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:45:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 3/14/2016 1:37 PM, mg wrote:
>>
>> In this specific, particular case, however, once the candidate
>> becomes aware that there is an organized effort to employ
>> potentially, or presumably, illegal activities to disrupt his
>> speeches and campaign rallies, there are undoubtedly a variety of
>> counter measures that he can take. I think that the most important
>> issues, though, is whether the law is on his side and whether the
>> activity has effected his popularity. With both those issues, Trump
>> is apparently the winner.
>
>I'm not so sure that Trump has the law on his side.
>
I feel confident that the obvious conspiracy by a bunch of thugs to
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 3/14/2016 1:37 PM, mg wrote:
>>
>> In this specific, particular case, however, once the candidate
>> becomes aware that there is an organized effort to employ
>> potentially, or presumably, illegal activities to disrupt his
>> speeches and campaign rallies, there are undoubtedly a variety of
>> counter measures that he can take. I think that the most important
>> issues, though, is whether the law is on his side and whether the
>> activity has effected his popularity. With both those issues, Trump
>> is apparently the winner.
>
>I'm not so sure that Trump has the law on his side.
>
disrupt his campaign rallies isn't legal and in any case it doesn't
appear to be affecting his popularity with the voters.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 15, 2016, 10:58:05 AM3/15/16
to
speaker or rushing the stage - can be punished. But, Trump has gone far
beyond that into areas that aren't legal. I do however agree it plays
well with his base - but I'm guessing it plays poorly outside it, and he
needs more than his base in November.
islander
Mar 15, 2016, 8:30:26 PM3/15/16
to
On 3/13/2016 7:32 PM, mg wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:41:04 -0700, islander <no...@priracy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2016 4:12 PM, mg wrote:
>> disrupted by the organized efforts of Freedom Works?
>>
> I never heard of that, but as I said in a previous post, human
> nature being what it is, people will tend to see Freedom of Speech
> as an absolute when it benefits their political party, or their
> ideology, or their religion, for example, but when it doesn't, they
> won't.
>
> No matter how True Believers, see the issue, however, the law is the
> law until someone changes it. So, if you want to argue about what
> the law is, that's one thing and if you want to argue about how it
> should be changed, that's another.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm
> for justice, no matter who it's for or against.
> --Malcolm X
>
You have a very short memory. There was a concentrated Astroturf
effort, funded by the health care industry and implemented through
Freedom Works under the leadership of Dick Armey in August 2009. They
even distributed instructions to Tea Party sympathizers on how to
disrupt town halls. Americans for Prosperity was a second group that
toured the country in a bus with a big red hand painted on it. They
spread misinformation about Obamacare by providing speakers at public
events.
These two groups are the primary reason that I complain about losing the
initiative on the public option when Max Baucus delayed consideration in
the Senate of the health care bill that was passed in the House.
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:41:04 -0700, islander <no...@priracy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2016 4:12 PM, mg wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 03:00:37 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/12/2016 9:47 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/12/2016 9:47 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>>>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:nc2pim$hs5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it Trump,
>>>>> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who will
>>>>> resolve the problem?
>>>>
>>>> We all agree that when someone rushes the stage, they get kicked out and
>>>> are subject to arrest whether they are a protestor or not.
>>>>
>>>> But as I read Trump, he might preemptively kick out protestors before
>>>> they disrupt his speeches or have only protestors arrested after they
>>>> disrupt and not others.
>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like Trump isn't big on Freedom of Speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/donald-trump-protests/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a question of who was yelling fire in a crowded theater. Was it Trump,
>>>>> or the protestors? Maybe Trumpt will appoint someone to the USSC who will
>>>>> resolve the problem?
>>>>
>>>> We all agree that when someone rushes the stage, they get kicked out and
>>>> are subject to arrest whether they are a protestor or not.
>>>>
>>>> But as I read Trump, he might preemptively kick out protestors before
>>>> they disrupt his speeches or have only protestors arrested after they
>>>> disrupt and not others.
>>>>
>>>> And to answer mg: as a general matter, the government can only proscribe
>>>> speech that disrupts when it is not based on the content of the speech.
>>>> Either arresting people before they disrupt or arresting only
>>>> protestors after they disrupt violates Freedom of Speech.
>>>>
>>>> speech that disrupts when it is not based on the content of the speech.
>>>> Either arresting people before they disrupt or arresting only
>>>> protestors after they disrupt violates Freedom of Speech.
>>>>
>>>> To Jeff: doesn't this strike you as Trump targeting people and opinions
>>>> he doesn't like - the things you accuse liberals of doing? I guess
>>>> Hillary is still worse in your eyes (at least for now - maybe a long
>>>> campaign will change your mind).
>>>>
>>>> he doesn't like - the things you accuse liberals of doing? I guess
>>>> Hillary is still worse in your eyes (at least for now - maybe a long
>>>> campaign will change your mind).
>>>>
>>> The person giving the speech also has Freedom of Speech rights. See
>>> the case of the "Irvine 11", for example:
>>> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/should-heckling-be-illegal
>>>
>> Where was your objection when the town halls in August 2009 were
>>> the case of the "Irvine 11", for example:
>>> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/should-heckling-be-illegal
>>>
>> disrupted by the organized efforts of Freedom Works?
>>
> I never heard of that, but as I said in a previous post, human
> nature being what it is, people will tend to see Freedom of Speech
> as an absolute when it benefits their political party, or their
> ideology, or their religion, for example, but when it doesn't, they
> won't.
>
> No matter how True Believers, see the issue, however, the law is the
> law until someone changes it. So, if you want to argue about what
> the law is, that's one thing and if you want to argue about how it
> should be changed, that's another.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm
> for justice, no matter who it's for or against.
> --Malcolm X
>
You have a very short memory. There was a concentrated Astroturf
effort, funded by the health care industry and implemented through
Freedom Works under the leadership of Dick Armey in August 2009. They
even distributed instructions to Tea Party sympathizers on how to
disrupt town halls. Americans for Prosperity was a second group that
toured the country in a bus with a big red hand painted on it. They
spread misinformation about Obamacare by providing speakers at public
events.
These two groups are the primary reason that I complain about losing the
initiative on the public option when Max Baucus delayed consideration in
the Senate of the health care bill that was passed in the House.
0 new messages