Silence at Remembrance Day ceremony disrupted by protestors

[paramedicmike]

JP has spoke a lot about freedom of speech, and the problem with freedom of speech is the actions that come with it. Speech in and of itself isn't the problem. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, or my beliefs. I have a problem with them disrupting things that are important to me, starting fires, burning things that are important to me at an event that is important to me. None of those are speech - those are actions.

In the US at least, and this is the basis from which I can write, disruptive acts (as both you and JP have outlined) including burnings in effigy et cetera have been determined by the Supreme Court to be protected speech. They are physical actions and do not always include the spoken word. However, the expression is, and has been determined to be, protected speech and therefore permissible.

If the laws are different in other countries then I am woefully ignorant and can't comment specific to them. Are free speech acts in Canada limited to just the spoken word? Or are actions included in free speech as well?

-be safe

-edited once for idea clarification

Edited November 14, 2010 by paramedicmike

[JPINFV]

So, given that they burned something while in a public place, within a close distance of thousands of people, you are saying that fire is a danger to others, and they shouldn’t have done that. Why couldn’t you just say that?

No one has made an argument about safety. So far the entire discussion has been about the message and the symbolism of the means. They could have taken scissors to it, conveyed the same message, and the safety issue wouldn't have been a factor.

And, what is the difference between running on stage, and shouting and disrupting a moment of silence? I disagree with your splitting hairs here. The intent is the same, the effect is the same, and the result is the same.

Lots. To say that you can't disrupt something in public and open to the public by shouting as part of a counter protest would be to make illegal all counter protests, regardless of the message. However, if you're counter protesting you don't get to run into the other group and start pulling down signs, pushing people, etc.

As someone else said, you are being deliberately obtuse. Knowing that you believe pencils are sacred, the question is should I be allowed to publicly, at your event, be allowed to destroy them, knowing that my actions will be offensive to you and others, and potentially endanger you and others? Again, intent is the issue.

The pencils were an example. I don't care what you, as an individual, does with a pencil nor a crucifix, and I value crucifixes much more than pencils. Should you be allowed to destroy them publicly at my event? Yes, you legally should. There may be limits on the specific mechanism of destruction, but the intent and final state of being destructed shouldn't be banned.

Freedom of speech isn’t an absolute. By granting freedoms in absolution, we risk, and potentially create the completely lawless society we try hard not to have. I think you either missed my point earlier, or are deliberately trying to avoid it when I asked “And if it deteriorates to that, where you destroyed something important to me, so I will destroy something important to you, where does it end?” If you throw a stone, then I throw a stone, then you throw a bigger stone, then I throw a grenade, then you throw a bigger grenade, where does it end? I can argue it is my right, that I have the freedom to do it, and so do you, but what does that gain us? Someone has to have the good sense to say enough is enough, and that your rights end where someone else’s start.

Yes, freedom of speech isn't an absolute, but the test for when speech can be limited isn't, "I vigorously disagree with your message."

As far as the tit-for-tat, I didn't ignore it. I just pointed out that the flaw in that line of thinking is the assumption that you have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own property because you place a high level of value on my property. I'll ask again, what right do you have to tell me what to do with my property? If I build a large model poppy, do you now have veto power over what I do with it because of what the poppy means to you? Does that veto power include compelling via police action to acquiesce to your demands? Do you have the right to be free from offense?

[emtannie]

No one has made an argument about safety. So far the entire discussion has been about the message and the symbolism of the means. They could have taken scissors to it, conveyed the same message, and the safety issue wouldn't have been a factor.

You made the argument about safety in your comments, so I was applying your argument to the original incident in the original post.

Lots. To say that you can't disrupt something in public and open to the public by shouting as part of a counter protest would be to make illegal all counter protests, regardless of the message. However, if you're counter protesting you don't get to run into the other group and start pulling down signs, pushing people, etc.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The pencils were an example. I don't care what you, as an individual, does with a pencil nor a crucifix, and I value crucifixes much more than pencils. Should you be allowed to destroy them publicly at my event? Yes, you legally should. There may be limits on the specific mechanism of destruction, but the intent and final state of being destructed shouldn't be banned.

Again, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Yes, freedom of speech isn't an absolute, but the test for when speech can be limited isn't, "I vigorously disagree with your message."

As far as the tit-for-tat, I didn't ignore it. I just pointed out that the flaw in that line of thinking is the assumption that you have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own property because you place a high level of value on my property. I'll ask again, what right do you have to tell me what to do with my property? If I build a large model poppy, do you now have veto power over what I do with it because of what the poppy means to you? Does that veto power include compelling via police action to acquiesce to your demands? Do you have the right to be free from offense?

My exact words were:

“Again, it goes back to intent – if your intent is to offend, and create chaos, then, no, you shouldn’t be allowed to stand on a street corner with your wood chipper. Feel free to do that in your own yard.”

I never said you couldn’t do that on your own property, which makes your above argument moot…

[paramedicmike]

My exact words were:

“Again, it goes back to intent – if your intent is to offend, and create chaos, then, no, you shouldn’t be allowed to stand on a street corner with your wood chipper. Feel free to do that in your own yard.”

I never said you couldn’t do that on your own property, which makes your above argument moot…

At least in the US this is specifically for whom freedom of speech was intended... even if the intent is to offend. Someone is *always* going to be offended by something someone has to say. One cannot limit speech to only what s/he finds acceptable or appropriate. If speech were limited based on what certain people found objectionable then no one would have the right to say anything. Once that freedom falls then others are soon to follow.

Even if the sole purpose and intent is to offend, the right to speak cannot and should not be eclipsed. You are free to be offended. You are free to voice your offense. You are free to counter protest. You are free to ignore it. You are not free to limit the rights of the individuals involved.

The actions may be despicable. The actions may be deplorable. They may be offensive and in egregiously poor taste. But they are protected. Because someday that may be you being called offensive who's actions are in poor taste.

-be safe

-edited for spelling

Edited November 14, 2010 by paramedicmike

[tniuqs]

Acceptable and legal are two different questions. Acceptable? No. Something that should be illegal? Not if you value freedom of speech.

Legal ? ok huh ?

Acceptable No.

Oh .. so your agree that this is an unacceptable practice and disrespectful to others but continue your rhetoric ? Do you have a mirror to look into ?

The term morality comes to MY mind as does the term moronic, just saying.

I highly suspect if you were speaking in the Emperors Japanese or the Nazi dialect of German right now you would be far more cautious in choosing your words.

cheers

[JPINFV]

Legal ? ok huh ?

Are the police supposed to take action against people engaged in legal activities? If we aren't looking at police action against the protesters, who, then, is supposed to take action?

Oh .. so your agree that this is an unacceptable practice and disrespectful to others but continue your rhetoric ? Do you have a mirror to look into ?

The term morality comes to MY mind as does the term moronic, just saying.

Who's job is it to enforce morality?

I highly suspect if you were speaking in the Emperors Japanese or the Nazi dialect of German right now you would be far more cautious in choosing your words.

cheers

Huh? Oh, wait, Godwin. Thanks, I win.

[emtannie]

Thanks, I win.

And you know the expression about winning an argument over the internet.....

[JPINFV]

And you know the expression about winning an argument over the internet.....

My parents always told me I was special.

[crotchitymedic1986]

Wow, you have to love a good Holy War. Would just like to point out a few facts that have been overlooked:

Most of the eroding of religious RIGHTS/TRADITIONS, have been done by two groups: Atheist Groups and Corporate America, not minority religions. Atheist groups accomplished this through lawsuits against governments who promoted christianity (ie.... the nativity scene at the County Court House). Note that the govermnents lost these suits based on American Law, which dates back to the Constitution. Corporate America then sold you out because they feared they would lose money by backing one religion (christianity). It is these two forces that have done the most to kill your Norman Rockwell vision of what America should be.

With all of that being said, this is very similar to the "Prayer in School Argument", in that those who are offended have no rationale basis for their argument. Any student who wishes to pray in school, can do so at any moment, as often as they like, as long as they do it silently and do not demand that others join them. The law does not stop you from praying, it just prevents the "school" or any person to force "the group" to pray to their GOD. No one has stopped you from saying Merry Christmas, you can say it all day long, as often as you wish, on any day of the year.

At the end of the day, "Merry Christmas" is a salutation, and America has a long history of changing salutations. We now change our salutations for the year based on the most recent Super Bowl Commercials (Remember WAZZZZZZ-UP) If you know that I am a practicing christian, then it is entirely appropriate to say Merry Christmas to me, but if you do not know, you should use a more generic salutation.

As far as protesting, it is a First Amendment Right, if you disagree with it, you should get the law changed. There is a group from the Westboro Baptist Church who travel the country to protest at the funerals of service people from our current two wars. I do not like it, but that is what makes America great. Do you really want to adopt the policies of Iran that would prevent such speech/protests ?

http://wjz.com/topstories/Corporal.Matthew.Snyder.2.421120.html

Edited November 14, 2010 by crotchitymedic1986

[tniuqs]

'JPINFV'

Are the police supposed to take action against people engaged in legal activities? If we aren't looking at police action against the protesters, who, then, is supposed to take action?

Quote from ORIGINAL reports: Police told the Daily Mail three men were arrested - two for public order offences and one for assaulting an officer.

Apparently the bobbies / coppers did, it appears you WIN in failing to read the entire post, one does not have to break a law to be arrested just accused. As stated prior its a very good thing for this protest group that did not occur in my home town, likely the police would NOT have been called, but in the UK apparently intervening to prevent "mob rule" and one of my most favourable hobbies (only exceeding my pleasure on as is part time axe murderer a bit) see avatar.

Who's job is it to enforce morality?

Good Point ! but for clarity again its a very good thing for this protest did not occur in my home town police would NOT have been called, small town, no media, no anonymity, lots of "rednecks" (of which this is a compliment by the way, where I live) just saying. I wonder if this "protest" occurred at the Arlington Cemetery if we would not be watching on CNN and in passing applauding the actions of patriotic Americans supported by patriotic Canadians ? Or you would ever dare post your "interpretation"

Huh? Oh, wait, Godwin. Thanks, I win.

Agreed you WIN in memetics and now my personal use of medications called emetics, that said: Firstly this Godwin pseudo Internet Law, and this a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1989 which has become an Internet adage. I find no humour in your comments or incorrectly applied personal interpretation of US Law in the slightest, but you do fail for applied logic or sensitivity.

Quote: Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.

Perhaps you missed the point of Godwin ? I did not compare glibly to someone else Hitler or the Nazis I was saying without the very war heroes and members of my Family that died for YOUR freedom of speech and YOUR rights (which in my opinion you now are now worthy as you do not understand the intent of law) My comments in comparing languages is called "situational irony" as YOU WOULD be speaking a different language, saluting in a different manner (of which you must have spent hours to locate on line) by the "rare chance" that you did not fit into groups acceptable by those defeated groups your family and even yourself would not have come to be ? I so am thankful that Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt shared the same language and ideals.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrpearlharbor.htm

But YES you WIN for the first time in the history of EMT City my nomination for hijacking a thread with the entire intend of disrespecting Canadian's, you WIN in putting your spin to with entire intent to distract and generate foolish controversy for your own twisted entertainment value.

So you WIN for applied rhetoric in your attempts to convince in anyway that this EXTREMIST MUSLIM GROUP has any validity in their protest, but by continuing your nonsensical "Freedom of Speech" argumentative position you could yourself be accused of promoting hatred, you should be cognitive that any commentary will be opposed vehemently. Wrong is Wrong as was as I pointed out that burning the Koran generated an international incident outcry by Muslims world wide ... Do we as Canadians or Brits condemn all of them to death to burn a symbol of respect and Remembrance (see rock_shoes "comments).

You WIN for knowledgeable of geography so did this event did not take place on Canadian soil perhaps I am confused or thought that this protest occurred in HYDE PARK UK ? It happened in SEE LINK and right close to Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site WOW Thanks for the correction.

http://maps.google.ca/?utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na-ca-bk-gm&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=google%20map

Yes you WIN for applying American Law to a Commonwealth and a Monarchy, or are you perhaps you are attempting to perpetuating the stereotypical ugly American concept ?

Apologies to my American Friends and no slight intended, to those who I value their friendship and those I DO highly respect on this site.

cheers

late entry crotchitymedic1986 " The new runner up of the I haven't got a clue about geography, failing to reading OP, and believing that "First Amendment Right's" are applicable in any other country, perhaps with intent of further provocation and promoting hatred ?"

brb Looking for a RAP song to link too ...

Edited November 14, 2010 by tniuqs