Veterans of America Feel the Limitations of Free Speech - Page 9

foundit66 · 07-11-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

I'm saying that my son was doing the EXACT SAME THING this guy was doing with his "story" about the "coffee in the VA Medical Center" incident.

Ahhh.
I guess the glaring difference which prevented me from seeing the analogy was that what your son did WAS ILLEGAL...
What this man was doing WAS NOT ILLEGAL...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

He's telling "his side" of the story, because he doesn't want you to know the "whole story".

Tell me Jefferson.
Is there ANY side of ANY story which makes his actions illegal?
Is there ANY side of ANY story which demands that he be kicked out of the hospital?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Once again... the man was NOT an "innocent bystander" who was wrongly mistreated - AS HE CLAIMED. He was there as a protester, and essentially he got kicked out of the cafeteria.

HOW was he not "innocent"?
How was his treatment justified?

HOW does him being a protestor justify him being kicked out of a cafeteria?
What did he ACTUALLY DO that justified him being kicked out of the cafeteria?

Even from YOUR side of the story, he was wrongly treated...
Unless you can explain something more...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

He is a liar. Period.

Oh Bullsh!t Jefferson.
WHAT did he lie about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

And while lying is not illegal, it destroys credibility. Therefore, I do not believe ANYTHING the man writes. Why? Because he's a liar. Get it?

What did he lie about?
Point me to what he said that was a lie.

Jefferson · 07-11-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Ahhh.
I guess the glaring difference which prevented me from seeing the analogy was that what your son did WAS ILLEGAL...
What this man was doing WAS NOT ILLEGAL...

Tell me Jefferson.
Is there ANY side of ANY story which makes his actions illegal?
Is there ANY side of ANY story which demands that he be kicked out of the hospital?

HOW was he not "innocent"?
How was his treatment justified?

HOW does him being a protestor justify him being kicked out of a cafeteria?
What did he ACTUALLY DO that justified him being kicked out of the cafeteria?

Even from YOUR side of the story, he was wrongly treated...
Unless you can explain something more...

Oh Bullsh!t Jefferson.
WHAT did he lie about?

What did he lie about?
Point me to what he said that was a lie.

The man LIED, claiming that he was "just sitting there having a cup of coffee."

This LIE leads the reader to believe that there was NOTHING MORE TO THE STORY, other than that he had a "Veterans for Peace" t-shirt on. And for the reader to believe that, the reader would be believing a LIE.

When in FACT, he was outside PROTESTING (which he has the right to do, even though they were trespassing), and came inside to get attention there. He does NOT, by strict legality, have the right to be protesting on government property. He certainly does NOT have the right to be protesting INSIDE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

His LIE is intended to make it look like his being in the cafeteria of the VA Medical Center was absolutely NO different than if you and I were in there discussing "stupid liberals". It's a bald-faced LIE!

Sorry buddy, you lose.

Quote:

Do we have an unfettered right to protest on government property?

No. The government can limit such protests depending on several factors. First, violent protests are outlawed anywhere. The text of the First Amendment provides for “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The key word is “peaceably” — violent protesting is not allowed.

Second, not all government property is treated the same for First Amendment purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court has established the public-forum doctrine to examine whether certain types of public property are open to First Amendment expressive activity. These categories include traditional public forums, limited or designated public forums and nonpublic forums. Still other government property is not considered a forum at all.

First Amendment rights apply the most in a traditional public forum, such as a public park. In its 1939 decision Hague v. C.I.O. the U.S. Supreme Court explained: “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”

The general rule is that government officials may not impose content-based restrictions on speech in a public forum. This means that city officials must not treat different persons and groups of persons differently on the basis of the content (and viewpoint) of their messages. The government can justify content-based speech restrictions only by showing that it has a compelling state interest in imposing them (such as safety or security concerns), and that it has done so in a narrowly tailored way. Even in a public forum, the government may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that are content-neutral, leave open ample, alternative ways for expression and are narrowly tailored. This means that city officials could limit protests to certain hours of the day and perhaps certain locations. Again, the key terms are “reasonable” and “content-neutral.”

The next category is a limited or designated public forum (though some lower courts distinguish between limited and designated — see discussion in Speaking at public meetings section).

In a limited public forum (such as a meeting room on a public college campus that is frequently used by outside groups), the government designates the certain types of subject matter that can be discussed at the location. After the government has created such a forum, setting boundaries on classes of speakers or topics, the government must meet the standards of a traditional public forum; namely, restrictions on speech must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. The theory is that when the government opens a forum up to the public, it shouldn’t be able to skew discussions by over-regulating expression.

Still another category is the nonpublic forum, a place where the government has greater leeway for control, as restrictions on expression must only be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. What this means is that the right to protest is often affected by the location and purpose of the government property where the protest takes place. In United States v. Grace (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that the “public sidewalks forming the perimeter of the Supreme Court grounds, in our view, are public forums and should be treated as such for First Amendment purposes.” The same protest rights would not apply inside the Supreme Court building or on the steps right outside the Court. In U.S. v. Kokinda (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that postal sidewalks were not public forums, writing that they do “not have the characteristics of public sidewalks traditionally open to expressive activity.” The Court clarified that “the location and purpose of a publicly owned sidewalk is critical to determining whether such a sidewalk constitutes a public forum.”

In sum, there is no unfettered right to protest on government property. Protests must be peaceable, and the government has the right to impose content-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on expression. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court said in Kokinda, “the government’s ownership of property does not automatically open that property to the public.”

The government has greater power to regulate expression when it acts as a proprietor controlling its internal operations than it does as a sovereign lawmaker. This means that government officials could limit protests inside a courthouse because the government has important operations to conduct. It must be able to control its operations to carry out its functions. The government must be able to carry on its own speech and expression free from interference. Contrast this with the public sidewalks two blocks from a courthouse. Here, the government cannot argue that it is conducting its own internal operations. Speech restrictions there would implicate a forum analysis and trigger a higher degree of judicial scrutiny.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...aspx?id=16479&

foundit66 · 07-11-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

The man LIED, claiming that he was "just sitting there having a cup of coffee."

This LIE leads the reader to believe that there was NOTHING MORE TO THE STORY, other than that he had a "Veterans for Peace" t-shirt on. And for the reader to believe that, the reader would be believing a LIE.

HOW can it be a "lie" when he EXPLICITLY SAYS that he was wearing a t-shirt with a peace slogan on it???

You are quoting ONE SENTENCE that he said, and because he did not mention his t-shirt in that ONE SENTENCE you are declaring him a liar?
IGNORING the fact that in OTHER SENTENCES that this man put into his story he EXPLICITLY TALKED about his shirt???

This is insane!

By analogy:
Jill: "Hey Jack. What have you been doing?"
Jack: "Nothing. I just went down to the hardware store and talked to Bill about the new hammers. Then I went and filled up on expensive gas."
Jill: You LIAR Jack. You weren't doing "nothing". How dare you LIE to me and say you were doing nothing."
Jack: <wonders to himself if Jefferson is completely off his rocker...>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

When in FACT, he was outside PROTESTING (which he has the right to do, even though they were trespassing), and came inside to get attention there.

That is YOUR presumption.
He was SITTING DOWN drinking a cup of coffee.
yeah. Some "attention" getter he had going on there...

You keep reading in whatever motivation YOU WANT to find...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

He does NOT, by strict legality, have the right to be protesting on government property. He certainly does NOT have the right to be protesting INSIDE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

It is your claim that he was protesting inside the building.
And you base that on the fact that he was wearing a t-shirt with a slogan on it?

I see.
So if I wear a "Mickey Mouse Rocks" shirt on inside a government building, that must mean I'm advertising, eh???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Still another category is the nonpublic forum, a place where the government has greater leeway for control, as restrictions on expression must only be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. What this means is that the right to protest is often affected by the location and purpose of the government property where the protest takes place.

HOW is a HOSPITAL not a "public forum"?
Are libraries next to be concluded as "non-public"???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

In sum, there is no unfettered right to protest on government property.

I'm not saying that the right to drink a cup of coffee with a t-shirt on is not "fettered".
But it's funny to see how you have quoted this article, which talks about SPECIFIC REASONS WHY people's right to free speech can be limited on government property, yet you CANNOT IDENTIFY ANY of these reasons that this man would be violating...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

This means that government officials could limit protests inside a courthouse because the government has important operations to conduct. It must be able to control its operations to carry out its functions. The government must be able to carry on its own speech and expression free from interference.

1) It is YOUR interpretation that this man was "protesting" just by wearing a t-shirt. That's inane!
2) This man WAS NOT INTERFERING WITH ANYTHING. Ergo, this complaint is just b.s.!

alias · 07-11-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

ROFLMAO!!!

ALIAS understood what I was saying, but Jefferson still doesn't get it.
Now that's pretty damn scary Jefferson...

Oh my. The consequences.
Alias whining incessantly...
How ever shall I cope....
<end sarcasm>

Whine away alias.
Your incessant, inane, and irrelevant whining has less of an effect on me than you calling me a f@66ot...

Just calling like I see em. No whine at all.

Jefferson · 07-12-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

HOW can it be a "lie" when he EXPLICITLY SAYS that he was wearing a t-shirt with a peace slogan on it???

You are quoting ONE SENTENCE that he said, and because he did not mention his t-shirt in that ONE SENTENCE you are declaring him a liar?
IGNORING the fact that in OTHER SENTENCES that this man put into his story he EXPLICITLY TALKED about his shirt???

This is insane!

By analogy:
Jill: "Hey Jack. What have you been doing?"
Jack: "Nothing. I just went down to the hardware store and talked to Bill about the new hammers. Then I went and filled up on expensive gas."
Jill: You LIAR Jack. You weren't doing "nothing". How dare you LIE to me and say you were doing nothing."
Jack: <wonders to himself if Jefferson is completely off his rocker...>

That is YOUR presumption.
He was SITTING DOWN drinking a cup of coffee.
yeah. Some "attention" getter he had going on there...

You keep reading in whatever motivation YOU WANT to find...

It is your claim that he was protesting inside the building.
And you base that on the fact that he was wearing a t-shirt with a slogan on it?

I see.
So if I wear a "Mickey Mouse Rocks" shirt on inside a government building, that must mean I'm advertising, eh???

HOW is a HOSPITAL not a "public forum"?
Are libraries next to be concluded as "non-public"???

I'm not saying that the right to drink a cup of coffee with a t-shirt on is not "fettered".
But it's funny to see how you have quoted this article, which talks about SPECIFIC REASONS WHY people's right to free speech can be limited on government property, yet you CANNOT IDENTIFY ANY of these reasons that this man would be violating...

1) It is YOUR interpretation that this man was "protesting" just by wearing a t-shirt. That's inane!
2) This man WAS NOT INTERFERING WITH ANYTHING. Ergo, this complaint is just b.s.!

That's just hogwash.

I DID NOT WRITE THAT ARTICLE concerning protesting on public property.

What I have said from the beginning, and will continue to say, is that this man is a liar. He's claiming to be an innocent victim - as if he just happened to walk into the VA Medical Center for a cup of coffee.

In TRUTH, the man was there protesting outside, and walked in for a cup of coffee.

He was NOT there as a run-of-the-mill citizen. He was there as a protester.

The whole premise of his article was a lie.

Now... for the record: Although I've already said this (and you've obviously ignored it), I think the whole situation is utterly stupid. While he probably shouldn't have been arrested, the Medical Center security people had EVERY right to tell him to leave. A HOSPITAL is not an appropriate forum/venue for obnoxious protesting.

Katczinsky · 07-12-2006, 11:18 AM

The only premises on which you claim he is a liar is soley because he is a peace activist. This is purely speculation, and I will believe the man until you provide concrete and uncircumstantial evidence. The burden of proof is upon you to prove he is lying, not upon him to prove he was telling the truth.

Jefferson · 07-12-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

The only premises on which you claim he is a liar is soley because he is a peace activist. This is purely speculation, and I will believe the man until you provide concrete and uncircumstantial evidence. The burden of proof is upon you to prove he is lying, not upon him to prove he was telling the truth.

Why don't you read my posts before you write drivel like this?

The guy claims that he was just "innocently sitting in the VA Medical Center having a cup of coffee."

That is a LIE.

He was a protester, who went inside the Medical Center. By law, they don't even necessarily have the right to be protesting on the grounds of a VA Medical Center, let alone going inside.

What is it about this that are you unable to get through your thick head?

Good lord.

Katczinsky · 07-12-2006, 04:17 PM

I did read your posts, and you still have yet to provide any concrete and uncircumstantial evidence. Him claiming to have innocently sitting in the VA having coffee isn't evidence that he is lying, it is the statement which you believe to be a lie. And yes, by law, they can protest (especially in front of a federal building), its called the First Amendment of the Constitution.

And why wouldn't a veteran be allowed into a VA hospital?

Again, after making your statement "That is a lie", you provide us with your evidence which leads you to this conclusion. The only evidence you provide is "He was a protester, who went inside the Medical Center". That isn't evidence he was lying, no matter how well you're convinced.

Jefferson · 07-12-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I did read your posts, and you still have yet to provide any concrete and uncircumstantial evidence. Him claiming to have innocently sitting in the VA having coffee isn't evidence that he is lying, it is the statement which you believe to be a lie. And yes, by law, they can protest (especially in front of a federal building), its called the First Amendment of the Constitution.

And why wouldn't a veteran be allowed into a VA hospital?

Again, after making your statement "That is a lie", you provide us with your evidence which leads you to this conclusion. The only evidence you provide is "He was a protester, who went inside the Medical Center". That isn't evidence he was lying, no matter how well you're convinced.

Read post #82 about this "supposed" right to the freedom of speech anywhere and everywhere.

foundit66 · 07-12-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

That's just hogwash.
I DID NOT WRITE THAT ARTICLE concerning protesting on public property.

What's that Samuel L Jackson line?
"English M_________r. Do you speak it?"

I was not saying that YOU wrote the article.
I was saying that HE wrote the article that CLEARLY gives the DETAILS of what he was doing there.
INCLUDING the aspects you claim he was "lying" by leaving out.
He obviously didn't leave out ANY details, as his story, in its entirety, GAVE YOU those details.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

What I have said from the beginning, and will continue to say, is that this man is a liar. He's claiming to be an innocent victim - as if he just happened to walk into the VA Medical Center for a cup of coffee.

He clearly established why he was at the VA on that day.
He CLEARLY STATED why in HIS story that HE told.
Yet you call him a liar for not giving that info.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

He was NOT there as a run-of-the-mill citizen. He was there as a protester.

The whole premise of his article was a lie.

That is YOUR premise for how you see the article.
He gave the FULL details.

YOU can't separate his actions outside the building with his actions INSIDE the building.
He wasn't picketing inside the building.
He wasn't chanting propaganda slogans inside the building.
He was sitting and drinking coffee, wearing a t-shirt which you don't like.
That's it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Now... for the record: Although I've already said this (and you've obviously ignored it), I think the whole situation is utterly stupid. While he probably shouldn't have been arrested, the Medical Center security people had EVERY right to tell him to leave. A HOSPITAL is not an appropriate forum/venue for obnoxious protesting.

I'm just curious. What's your statute of limitations on calling him a "protestor"?

Should he have waited 24 hours after protesting before entering the building for coffee? Or would that have been too soon?

Should he have changed all his clothing first?
If he came there on another day, and just walked straight into the building with the same t-shirt, would you automatically allege that he was "protesting"?

The whole issue of being asked to leave JUST BECAUSE OF HIS T-SHIRT is inane. The rationale by which you label him as a protestor is inane.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode