In recent new, Bluefield College President, David Olive, has recently suspended several members of the basketball team for kneeling during the national anthem, after they were warned not to.
His reasoning behind this issue was this, as quoted by him:
"The basis for my decision stemmed from my own awareness of how kneeling is perceived by some in our country, and I did not think a number of our alumni, friends, and donors of the College would view the act of kneeling during the anthem in a positive way,"
He goes onto to say:
"I further told them that their intended message in bringing awareness of racial injustices was being diluted or completely lost because some saw their act of kneeling as being disrespectful to the flag, our country, and to our veterans. In my opinion, their message was not being heard."
Needless to say, the players didn't listen to this warning and knelt on February 8, where the president promised there would be consequences for their actions, and cited how this does not violate any first amendment rights. After suspending the players, the team was forced to forfeit the following game.
What makes this story even more interesting is that the players claim that they were told before the season that they were allowed to kneel during the anthem, but they couldn't say exactly who told them they were allowed to do so. Hence, they were confused by the suspensions.
Here's a link to know more about the story:
https://www.aol.com/virginia-naia-schoo … 28109.html
My question to all of you is this. Who's in the wrong here? And who's in the right? Was it justified for the Bluefield College President to suspend these players? Or was it wrong for him to impede on their first amendment rights? Or do you think that the President may have lied to them citing that maybe he and other school officials told them it was okay to kneel initially but went back on the decision later? Or do you think the students and Gray, in the article link, are making that up? Please discuss.
The players do not own the gym. They do not own the college. They do not own the team.
As such, using that venue to make political statements, after being told not to, leaves them without a leg to stand on. They are free to kneel in the street near the college flagpole, but they are NOT free to use the college as a platform for their statements.
I say, horse puckey.
The players are students that pay tuition, I don't care what is it that disturbs Rightwingers, anyway. They are human beings not a product. I think that the administrator is out of line as the difference between paid professional players performing and college students is quite obvious to me. We had a president who while in office exercised his "right" to free speech which everybody who is anyone would say was inciting a riot, yet basketball players cannot make their gesture, without the Right getting bent out of shape?
The people are there to watch the game and they should do just that as the Right of students expressing themselves in a peaceful and non vulgar manner should be preserved. What about the 1st Amendment rights of the students, they are not just performing seals, you know? I have to tolerate rightwing mobs threatening the Michigan governor as an expression of free speech by the Right, but these students cannot kneel? If people are so easily intimidated perhaps they need to stay home in the first place.
There is no going back or forward, the rights of the students to peacefully expressed themselves in public must remain sacrosanct.
Would a group have first amendment rights to hold a Trump rally on your front lawn?
My Front lawn is private property, Wilderness. Using your logic, maybe the players should not agree to play at all
I think if they feel that strongly they should truly protest playing. I see both sides on this one. I do think the players would be taken more seriously if they protested on their own time outside of institutional sports. Ultimately they do have their individual first amendment rights. And they are not stopping others from respecting the anthem. I would just let them do what they please if it is not causing problems.
Lets face it Sharlee, certain people are not so much disturbed by the action more than what it is in their minds that it represents.
I am a veteran and I take no offense at the action of the students. No one is being fooled here. Peaceful, reverential with respect. If the Rightwinger can't receive that message, then too bad for him or her. I have to listen to that Greene lady in Congress with her anti-Semitic diatribe, as supposedly a responsible member of the Government. At the same time, her fellow legislators (GOP) excuse this as "free speech". This at the highest levels of Government, while the Right denigrates college students exercising their right to "free speech"
I draw the line in professional sports because, unfortunately, these men are paid to perform and that is the only reason I may not support such gestures in sports, generally.
The students should seriously consider whether they want to participate in any athletic activity at such an institution where their right to speech is going to be so encroached upon.
As I said all should have their 1st amendment protected. Free speech is at the core of our society, as is the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If we start choosing to pick and choosing and picking persons that can have these rights,
we are in trouble. If the students are peaceful they should be able to take to their knee. I note most want to follow the Constitution and will argue the point with veracity, as I do myself. We can't pick and choose which parts to respect, we need to be tolerant and respect the rights of others. I love the anthem, I absolutely love it when I attend a baseball game, and one can see many put their hand on their hearts even outside the stadium if late for the anthem. But, I like to respect others, maybe they are feeling the same pride down on that knee for another reason, another cause.
It's time we all realize we need to put the breaks on, and really look around to all that is really going on in our country, our society. Those being peaceful taking a knee need their space.
Does that mean that college property is open to anyone that wants to use it for any purpose? Can I hold my 18th birthday bash in the ballroom? May I have a party in the English class? May I protest gay rights in the swimming pool? Can I have a KKK rally during a football game?
No. There are rules set by the college; people (students or otherwise) do not have the right to decide that the rules do not apply to them.
Just like I can gather the "brothers" of the Black Panthers People Party to party in your back yard?
You know what I am talking about, Wilderness.
How does an otherwise respectful gesture compare with that?
The point is that "respect" is in the eye of the beholder, and a great many find great disrespect in kneeling before the flag. Is it not in the hands of the college whether or not to allow such massive disrespect to the flag, and thereby the nation it stands for (and supplies not only the venue and the education for those same students)?
Either we are required to make all tax supported property available to any and all that wish to use it for whatever purpose they wish to, or not. If we are then shouldn't we be applauding, or at least ignoring, the White Supremacist gang parading down the sidelines of a college football game?
We don't get the choose - either all are welcome to use our property for their purposes or none is.
"and a great many find great disrespect in kneeling before the flag."
And on the other hand, a great many don't, so now what? Disrespect is your sole interpretation and is not shared.
Free speech is free speech, Wilderness, and that applies to everyone. While , I might have a concern with disrespectful gestures during the anthem, I don't think solemnly taking a knee is one of them. If the klan wants to march, fine, as long as they are non violent and not impede ongoing activities.
I get pissed about colleges allowing students to carry guns on campus, yet taking a knee is SO offensive... looks as if we all have our axes to grind, right, Wilderness?
Yes we do (have axes). And yet we continue to bend over backward so as not to offend others. We require PC language so as not to offend a handful. We tear down monuments to our history because a minority find them "offensive". We change decades old team names because a tiny minority find them offensive.
How do we pick which actions are offensive and worthy of protection and which are to be applauded? Those with loud voices are protected while those wishing to remain with the status quo are not?
Who is we? I can say that I have been offended, is that to be ignored since I may not be considered a part of who it is that you identify as "we"?
Perhaps, if your "we" were to be offended, would they be as accommodating? If you were indigenous, perhaps you would take offense by a team referred to as "Red Skins", or being indifferent to issues that are of no concern to "we".
We put traitors and insurrectionists in prominent places in the public square which may well be offensive to all in the South that do not subscribe to the romanticized version of the so called "Lost Cause"
The Silent Majority has the decibel level on its gripes that is more than audible by everyone
I am here to resist the status quo as unacceptable in many aspects, the same one that gives you greatest comfort.
What I'm hearing is that you support such action...as long as you either approve or are ambivalent about the protest/complaint/message. Those that are offended when you aren't, well, they just need to suck it up.
Is that it? Can you honestly say you would support those kids using a (assume public) college as their venue, violating college rules as they do, if they were promoting racism or segregation as the proper way of life? If they were exhibiting offensive action as a way to promote some other action you personally find extremely offensive and wrong?
What about those that are not offended when me and mine are? Do we just need to suck it up?
Well, Wilderness, rules apply to us all but we have to be careful as to restricting non-violent communication and expression in the interests of free speech.
People can say and express what they wish, even the most henious of bigots. You know why I say that?
Sticks and stones..... it depends on the nature of the offensive actions.
I always want the freedom to express my views without rightwing oriented vitriol. To protect my rights I have to protect the rights of my adversaries to do the same.
Do you demand the right of free speech anywhere in the country? Do you have the right to shut down a freeway to shout your message? Do you have the right to do it on private ground? Do you have the right to do in from the Oval Office?
Your free speech is (almost) unlimited; do you demand that your chosen location to make that speech is also unlimited? That is the question here - not what they say or do, but where they choose to do it.
Yes, I do insist on the concept of free speech anywhere, I don't care if our adversaries are offended by the message. It would not be protest if protesters were all confined to a broom closet.
But, you do not have the right to block public thoroughfare, shut things down and otherwise without a permit. There are issues like private property that I respect.
They can do "it" wherever they like as long as long as it meet the terms I described above.
Then you should not object to a protest inside the Capital or the White House. Or the idiots that took over a forest service building (in Oregon, wasn't it?).
A while back we had the "Wall street" thing in my city - would you have approved of them filling a small park for a month (which they did)? Would you still approve when the park was destroyed after that much use (no intentional damage, just too much use) to the point it was bulldozed and re-built?
There is also the wee matter of permits: those students were denied the "permit" (permission) to hold their demonstration on the basketball court. Again, assuming public rather than private college, does that make a difference? If they didn't need permission, do protesters inside the White House or Capital?
yes, I do object, to the protest inside the Capitol building and forest service building in Oregon. Do you have the right to break windows, damage the building and pilfer private property as part of your protest? Do you have the right to assault guards as part of a "peaceful" protest? Do you have the right to bring your firearms into areas where they are expressly forbidden?
That to me, seems a far cry from merely "taking a knee" at a Pledge of Allegiance moment as the only damage is upsetting rightwingers.
I don't know that anyone could have anticipated the amount of damage done to the park by those that did not intend to damage the park and its facilities. But based on that experience, it is not unreasonable to restrict its use beyond a specific period of time to minimize damage and expense. Because the protest goes beyond expressing a point of view to now, damaging property.
Students don't need a permit to take a knee during the ceremony. Why should they need a permit, they neither threaten life nor property? It is not a big "to do", Wilderness, just a few men that kneel rather than stand, how disruptive is that?
But because it is a "church school", the students have violated rules that in any other case would be fine. I do believe that there is a difference between public and private colleges. I did not agree to have my 1st amendment rights circumcised attending a public institution, but at a private one, particularly one with a religious denominational bent, I would have been aware that certain restrictions to behavior and activity could well apply.
Hmm . . . what does a "circumcised" Right look like? Are some Rights longer than others? Would that make a difference? Did they save the 'foreright'?
Poopah me all you want, but I bet you conjured up a few mental images yourself.
yeah, I was thinking about another word, "this" is not what I meant. I should have said "circumscribed".
I guess that you will have to call it a "senior moment".
Point taken over the violence at the Capital and the Oregon thing. But it isn't (or wasn't supposed to be) about the violence; just that public property was utilized for the protest, and was without permission.
The park - absolutely the damage was foreseen, and it was inevitable. You can't pitch tents over grassland for any length of time without destroying the grass. You can't tie them to bushes for weeks without damaging the bushes. You can't have thousands of people trampling the grass every day without ruining it. Even the playground equipment was damaged beyond reasonable repair, just from overuse and, I suppose, use by adults rather than children.
Perhaps a better example might be when the Capital was occupied a few years ago by left wingers. No permit, no permission, they just walked in and occupied it. Was that OK?
A little disturbing that you find public property protest OK if they only disturb "right wingers", though. Would you have felt the same if those kneelers had been in blackface and carrying signs advocating the reinstatement of segregation?
I just don't see that our public property, in total, is subject to use by protestors. Some of it, sure - sidewalks, streets that have made accommodations to be shut down, etc. Not so much buildings, public events, etc.
I attended a rodeo several years ago where we were asked to stand for the anthem and then regaled for 15 minutes with a sermon on teaching our children to accept God instead. A public funded event inside a public facility - I was nearly as offended as when idiots think it's appropriate to disrespect our flag (and thereby our country) during public events. Or private events such as the ball game in your example or a football game.
There is a time and place for such displays, and having a captive audience does not make it such a time OR place. IMO.
When and Where is there ever a "good and appropriate time" to protest? It is not being done to make the target of the protest comfortable.
Unauthorized entry is akin to trespassing, without any of the participants having to have disturbed a thing. Generally, a park does not have doors and locks and is designed for open public thoroughfare. As you say, the facility at the park was abused by people who lawfully overused the facility beyond its designed purpose. That is a little different than those that break and enter into a locked and secure building. Breaking in and entering in never OK.
as for the shoe on the other foot with your "blackface" example. I have to deal with as much at Charlottesville back in 2017. They have the right to peacefully protest as much as my side does. I am sure that the white supremists that marched that day weren't terribly concerned about the opinion of the "other side".
There might be cause to require permits for such gatherings at the park if they are to extend over a certain period of time to address the costs associated with the increased traffic.
I don't see our public property subject to ABUSE by protesters.
Having to listen to 15 minute sermon which was not provided as part of the program would be irritating, to atheists and agnostics as well as religious people who did not expect this at a rodeo would not be happy. The men that kneeled did not take up excessive time or space making their point, that is the difference.
Like many liberals, I believe that adherence to what the flag stands for is more important than the physical entity.
Somewhat along the lines of where to protest: my local news tonight indicates the state legislature is considering a new law that prohibits protesting at private property. Not "on" it, but "at" it ("on" is obviously trespassing and illegal): the video was of a group outside a private home, on the sidewalk/street, protesting that very law. They were equipped with a effigy being hung, what looked like flaming swords and something else I couldn't see. The home the were protesting at was one of congress member, who indicated it frightened his little girl pretty bad, and she wanted to know why they wanted the family dead.
The law (unfinished or voted on yet) is something along the lines of being illegal to protest at private property with the intent to harass, scare or a couple of other similar things. This is exactly in line with your comment that to be effective people will be harassed - that without that there is no reason to be there.
Protesters said they were there because "Where else can we be heard? Where else will they listen to us?" Apparently they don't know how to write a letter or email.
Oh, I have a comment,alright. What your state legislature proposes is a dangerous imposition on the 1st Amendment and while that sort of thing might pass muster in Idaho, it wouldn't be tolerated in the more progressive states. But there are probably more than a few that would challenge such a law, and it still may not stand under court scrutiny.
Face it, Wilderness the public crosswalks all face private property, so you now cannot protest from a public sidewalk? I would say that the so called provision against harrassment and scare could easily be interpreted to include political messages of dissent and complaint. The first stages to denigrating democracy is the silence of the people in their right to protest and that doesn't sit well with me.
I say as long as people are nonviolent, not disturbing the peace after certain hours nor restricting access to roads and sidewalks for pedestrians and motorists without a permit, I don't see a problem.
No, relegating protests to e-mails and such will not do.....
But we are, by definition, allowing the harassment of people. We're allowing children to be harassed and frightened (who will pay for their psychological treatments?). We're allowing people, for no more reason than that they think they have a cause, to directly interfere in other's lives, causing harm to innocent people. Perhaps, particularly the children, great harm.
Do we really wish to allow it to go that far? Don't forget that video (wish I could show it to you); an effigy hanging by a noose, at night, with whatever those long flaming things were. That's what was shouting outside the home of that legislator. You'd never, ever accept it as free speech if it were the KKK outside a black legislator's home; why should we accept it outside anyone's home?
I predict (and hope) that the nation comes to it's senses and begins to regulate and control these "peaceful protests" better than they are now. I'm a firm believer in free speech...not so much in harming other people in the name of a cause they probably don't believe in anyway.
What is harrassment, Wilderness? Is it being exposed to ideas and concepts for which you disagree?
We cannot subordinate important constitutional rights because of fear by the children.
But, if you are not on the person's property no one is hurt excepting assault of ideas in your own mind.
It is the same principle that I apply to the idea of censorship. Conservatives use the supposed danger of exposure of unsuitable materials to minors as an excuse to censor everybody. I and the Left say, parents are responsible for their children and can control their access to objectionable material, electronic or otherwise without making the rest of society act as their nannies.
I wish you could show me the video as well, and I know that protests can be ugly, but I not going trade in that right because I see things that are unpleasant. That includes the KKK on the street, they were not censored in Chancellorsville, why should they be anywhere else? There was a time no so terribly long ago where they marched down city streets, were they violating the law? No.
What you and I consider "overboard" are two different things.
What is harassment? The definition would absolutely include a group of people with a hanging effigy and burning swords in front of your home, shouting at you to come out. It would include blocking your car from entering the street. It would include scaring your children, making them ask why the group wants them dead.
Do you disagree with any of that?
C'mon, Cred - are you trying to tell me that you would support the KKK burning a cross on the sidewalk in front of your home, with an effigy hanging from it, while shouting for you to come out? I wouldn't (more likely to squeeze a trigger in their direction) and would absolutely call for police.
Where is an example, Wilderness. Senator Cruz of Texas is having protesters on the sidewalk in front of his residence making light of his Cancun trip, deserting the state in the midst of the weather crisis.
I do see your point though about excess however. I may have to consider such behavior as you described as disturbing the peace. I can only say that non-violent protests, even those in front of a residence has to have some inherent restrictions. I would consider blocking of the car as valid. Using your definition people in Boise would consider any black guy walking around with a "Black Lives Matter" placard as inherent harrassment for every "private residence" on the city block. Protests in principle do not exist if those on the receiving end are not annoyed or made uncomfortable. When the line is crossed thru blocking access and egress, by shouting and such at ungodly hours, there may well be a case.
Wilderness, I would not support such an action as one burning a cross on the sidewalk in front of my home. But no laws have been broken, what can I do about it taking place on public property? It does not have to be in front of my house, but across the street, where I can still see the symbols. For that to not be harassing would mean that it is out of my eyesight, is that legally possible?
"Protests in principle do not exist if those on the receiving end are not annoyed or made uncomfortable."
And there you have it. You can't protest with hassling, irritating, annoying and angering people. You can't protest without disturbing the peace of those same people.
And that's something I will not accept; that because you think you have a cause it is perfectly fine to disturb my peaceful life. No.
Are you annoyed and harassed because of exposure to beliefs and positions that are not your own? You are angry because you don't want to see my point of view expressed in the public square? Those are not valid reasons to prohibit protest. That annoyance and anger is in your own mind.
That is the Wonderful Land of Oz, you are better off staying in Idaho.
No, I'm annoyed because they are blocking my way, because of the noise pollution they make and because, IMO, there are far better ways of promoting change than to harangue and irritate someone (me) that can do nothing to help them). Because so many turn into destructive rampages (often, IMO, preplanned). Because I've nearly always already heard the arguments and don't need the peace disturbed to hear it again. Because inherent in It is not necessary to irritate people to do that. (Personally, I communicate directly with my legislators, the way our system is supposed to work.) Because protests are very seldom about presenting facts and data: they are about raising an emotional storm.
It is not about "your people", it is not about you. It is not personal at all; it is about peace, quiet and obeying the law. It is about respecting others, not intentionally annoying them for no gain. It is about leaving others alone to go their way without obstruction or interference (respect, again).
But I have not said protest should be prohibited; only the "civil disturbance" we have come to accept as normal and a necessary part of life. Follow the law, get your permit and eliminate, as much as possible, interference with other people's lives and you're free to protest as much as you wish.
The problem, of course, is that protests do NOT eliminate interference with the lives of others; the object is to interfere and annoy as much as possible, presumably while staying within the letter of the law, if not the spirit. If that's what you want, I'm happy to shut that protest down as soon as it starts.
No, Wilderness, I don't advocate blocking access to the crosswalks or streets. I spent an inordinate amount of time in Denver almost 20 years ago finding detours to get around the city's annual Cinco de Mayo celebrations. While they had a permit to clog the city's arteries, it was annoying all the same. So, I am not tone deaf to the point you make.
But, if you are doing neither or if you have the proper permit, what is the issue?
There are many that are educated about the existence of problems through protest, what about the Boston Massacre in protest against Great Britain in 1770? While you be in the know and don't want to hear it, can you speak for others? There are massive protests now in Myanmar over an overbearing and tyrannical military regime that usurped power from a democratically elected government. What about all the "stop the steal" protests, do you have the same beliefs about them? I never liked Trump nor anything he stood for, but can I say that the group marching down my sidewalk with their costumes and placards and brandished firearms constitutes harassment? Do I have to live with Trumpers disturbing my peace?
Short of receiving, for many, an unwelcome message, the law remains intact for me, regardless.
Disseminating information and educating the uninformed is always gainful.
Lawful protest does not innately involve obstruction or interference, unless you consider the message to be such.
"Follow the law, get your permit and eliminate, as much as possible, interference with other people's lives and you're free to protest as much as you wish".
OK, as long as the message itself is not interpreted as "interference".
The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental aspect of American civil liberties, but they cannot or should not affect public thoroughfare,(without a permit) trespass on or damage private or public property.
We're not really that far apart...except I think you DO support illegal (non-permitted) protests that block public access to streets, sidewalks, business, etc. You support interfering in people's lives, beyond blocking off a street or park to protest in. Just a feeling from your general support.
I don't, but neither do I consider a message as interference. I think I made it clear what interference is, and it is not the message. Just stopping or even slowing beyond a negligible amount (illegally) the orderly procession of other lives.
A few years ago I stood outside the Bellagio in Vegas, waiting for the water show to start. Some idiot, and half a dozen entourage, set up a portable PA system on that popular spot and began haranguing people about his God. You couldn't hear conversation from the person right next to you, and if that isn't the definition of "disturbing the peace" I don't know what is. His message (God) didn't matter - could have been racism, taxes, illegal aliens, whatever - it was that he was grossly disturbing the people quietly waiting for the show, and doing it deliberately. He had a captive audience and made full use of it, although I would submit that not a person within earshot (a block away) gave a thought to the message. Just the irritation, and that's the result from the vast majority of people, I think. I'm not there to hear your scream out your opinions or prevent me from my own desired actions - get out of my face and leave me alone!
Your "feelings" has no basis of support. I told you what my values are, is it because I am progressive that what it is I told you was the case, you cannot accept?
Any behavior excess opens the protestors to arrest and unpleasant disturbance that has undesired outcomes.
But the right to public dissent must never be silenced, no more than the Rightwinger's insistence regarding the unlimited right to bear and brandish firearms.The captive audience situation you described was inappropriate, yet not the same as open protests.
No, public dissent must never be silenced - I would not support any such effort.
But...what is the real difference between that "captive audience" and others that are forced to live around or through a protest? Just because it was religious? I can't see that - whatever your message, God or other, is immaterial as you still have the right to give it.
I will say, though, that the frequency with which "peaceful protests" turn violent and/or destructive gives me to think twice about simply issuing permits. Scenes like we saw all last year simply cannot be permitted! If that takes payment of sufficient funds (to get that permit) to supply enough national guard to control a protest, then so be it. Life isn't free, and requiring others (that have no desire to hear you) to pay for your message to be heard isn't reasonable. Perhaps a bond as well - whatever it takes to eliminate what we saw happen last year.
I don't like the idea of bonds as they are equivalent to the old poll tax used to prevent people from voting. This prior restraint would serve to help eliminate the practice making conservatives happy. It is a prior restraint as I think conservatives are afraid of dissenting voices, period, it doesn't matter even if it is something as innocuous as kneeling during the anthem before a football game.
I guess your point is that all protests are inherently destructive and violent.
My point is that conservatives simply are fearful and cannot tolerate presentation of contrary ideas and such in the public square regardless of how it is done.
There are a lot of public displays and such that I have to pay for from Macy's parades, Trump's military pass and review parades, etc. How many other public things do I have to pay for of this nature? Well, I believe that supporting people's right to speak in public protest is no more burdensome.
Fortunately it isn't about the evils of those nasty conservatives: it is about the destruction and violence that protests all too often produce. Liberal, conservative, marxist, communist; all are irrelevant. Violence is not.
I don't like charging protesters a bond, or even for the protection needed, either. But what is the option? How do we prevent protests turning bad if they won't police themselves? What other options do we have?
If you don't think "speaking in public protest is no more burdensome" than Macy's parades or Trump's military pass, you need to spend some time in Portland, or Seattle, talking to those that experienced it first hand. Talk to Congress, Congress that has erected a fence around their place of "business" to prevent it from happening again.
You want to write off the rioting as abnormal, but it isn't. Not any more; simply gathering to walk down the street isn't cutting it and "peaceful protests" are often planned to create such an emotional storm that rioting is almost inevitable.
When you look at the millions that were involved in the Woman March after Trump took office or even the Floyd marches, they were all overwhelmingly peaceful. Do I get to ban possession of firearms for all because some people choose to misuse them to commit massacres and such?
I say the Right of freedom of speech, assembly and petition is more important than the relatively small amount of excess. I am sure that you would say the same in regard to your precious 2nd Amendment.
As for a remedy, what is happening to the participants of the Capitol riots?
The FBI are using the world of ubiquitous cameras to identify and prosecute. Let's use that approach in other similar gatherings to identify ringleaders and make appropriate arrests when the gatherings go beyond "peaceful protests". Perhaps fore-knowledge of this may contribute to participants restraining themselves.
And when I think of the millions participating in protests generally, I still say that rioting is the exception rather than the rule.
"Do I get to ban possession of firearms for all because some people choose to misuse them to commit massacres and such?"
LOL As soon as anyone participating in a protest must register, pay extra fees and take classes in how to protest. It might be good to require a mental health evaluation as well, right deny any with a felony, and limit the size of protests to less than 10 people, right?
"I say the Right of freedom of speech, assembly and petition is more important than the relatively small amount of excess."
Tell the people of Portland that it was a "relatively small amount of excess". But let me know; I'd like to see their reaction.
Most cities have cameras everywhere anymore; are they being used to arrest tens of thousands for the summer riots?
Absolutely it is always the few that ruin it for the many. Is that a reason to decriminalize drinking and driving or any other law? Because breaking the law is the exception?
"LOL As soon as anyone participating in a protest must register, pay extra fees and take classes in how to protest. It might be good to require a mental health evaluation as well, right deny any with a felony, and limit the size of protests to less than 10 people, right?"
I protested at one time, I did not see all this stuff of which you speak and you are exaggerating and you know that. So, I can't buy a firearm without going through the litany you described, never seemed that involved to me and even if it were, conservatives are certainly against the concept of registration and all that. Isn't that what you have always told us all?
How many other cities over the last 4 years have had protests with nothing at all happening? Why cherry pick? Could I use the incidents of armed men storming state capitals or Rightwingers sacking the Capitol building. Do I consider their aberrant behavior as a standard for all? I say no.
There is a point where we agree to disagree. I say no to any attempt to shut down protests on some line of prior restraint. And nobody needs to be trained to walk peacefully in a group without making trouble, neither does one need permits or licenses.
You speak of Portland, but I can speak of Las Vegas, El Paso,Littleton Colorado, Orlando, etc. do I go on?
You missed the point on the guns - it was rather tongue in cheek, but when protests are regulated as much as guns are then you can ask if you can have all the guns while leaving protests as they are.
"Why cherry pick?"
Because I cannot possibly list all the riots last year. My keyboard would die before I could finish.
Of course we don't consider aberrant behavior as standard for all: "Absolutely it is always the few that ruin it for the many.". But we don't have laws and law enforcement for the non-aberrant behavior; we have them for those who insist they can do as they wish.
If no one needs permits, training or licenses to protest peacefully then we obviously don't have riots, right? Again, for the third time, it is the actions of a few that ruin it for the rest. Unfortunately those "few" are growing in number; while we might have seen 50 people in a year that were violent we now see thousands, or tens of thousands, in a single year, causing billions in damage.
And your solution is to pretend it is only a few people and we should never do anything about it because protests are sacred? Can't say I share your opinion there.
Ok, Wilderness, but again, you could not list the numbers of protests large and small in the last 4 years which is an infinitely more daunting number.
"If no one needs permits, training or licenses to protest peacefully then we obviously don't have riots, right? Again, for the third time, it is the actions of a few that ruin it for the rest."
I could use that as an excuse to prohibit the possession of any assault weapon because of the actions of an abusive few, who just happen to kill hundreds of people, over a protests that in becoming a riot amounts to throwing a brick or two through a window, in comparison.
Here is a hypothetical, me and some "brothers" and sisters, total of 15 people wanted to stage a Black Lives Matter peaceful protest in a Boise neighborhood. They are on public property, sidewalks. Neither Pedestrian nor motor traffic is being impeded, it is only message that you don't want to see nor hear, but isn't that irrelevant? Or Is harrassment and abuse considered the case just due to our mere presence?
Why do I or they need permit and training licenses and such for this? Can you not see the dangerous direction you are leading toward with this idea?It is a baby that must be drowned in the bath water, as that is in violation of the 1st AMendment on its face.
https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local … 216d25c4be
Pretty long, but you can skip to 1:04 and 1:42 for a couple of very short clips. There's also a decent discussion of the proposed rule. It mentions torches, pitchforks and (I think) an animal hung in effigy.
Yeah, we have very different ideas of what is "overboard" - you will accept almost anything, while I don't want to be disturbed. I want to live my life in peace, quietly, without being bothered by a thousand different "causes". That's why I hire legislators to do the job for me - so I don't have to.
So many want to stop the world so they can get off, Idaho would be a great place to disembark.
Many of us still have to deal with this "ball of confusion" as it is.
I get your point about harrassment and such. Yes, I accept much but there is much that is not in harmony from the point of view of at least the few that live outside Idaho.
Peace and quiet and the ability to maintain it is synonymous with justice for some of us, though. I think that the causes that you do not want to be bothered by are just those that you disagree with. Don't ever let me get on the topic of 2nd Amendment issues, you certainly would not be found sitting on the sidelines then?
To me it parallels the case of having to say the Pledge of Allegiance. That was resolved with Barnett vs. West Virginia State Board of Education 1943 by the Supreme Court. It came down to a first amendment rights issue. The court ruled essentially saying the students cannot be forced to do rituals like salute the flag or recite the Pledge. So, as I see it the 'student' athletes can not be forced to stand for the National Anthem, even though the kneeling is seen as an act of protest.
There have been many schools taking issue with kneeling especially in high schools. It would be interesting if someone finally does take it to court. I think the Barnett vs. West Virginia decision would come into play since these are schools.
The Wikipedia explanation of Barnett vs. West Virginia Board of Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virg … ._Barnette
Articles of interest regard kneeling and the Barnett vs West Virginia . . . case:
Colin Kapaepernick kneeling and the 1943 case
The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co … court-case
https://observer.com/2017/11/1943-court … ntroversy/
Snopes conclusion with Kapaepernick is the NFL being a private entity the 1943 Supreme Court ruling does not apply.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/supre … c-rituals/
Edit: It occurred to me some colleges/universities are private. So, does the Snopes conclusion for the NFL apply in those cases?
Our world is being systematically destroyed by making the younger generations more and more subservient. Like another person said before--they are humans and are not products. Maybe someone else funds the college or runs it, but that does not make them less human. No laws were being broken, and that mixed messages were involved makes their stance even more understandable. I say bravo!
These young athletes are trained to follow the rules of their chosen sport, they should also have to follow the rules of their chosen school. Rules are rules and if they wanted to change them, there are legitimate avenues for pursuing a change. Free Speech does not mean a free pass to pursue your own agenda anytime you feel the need to. It also does not give you a carte blanche - there are consequences to our actions. If people choose to tune out because of how they interpret it, that is their right.
I get the point the president is making. The players are attempting to make a statement. The statement heard would be entirely different from the one they want to make.
It is a private college, I believe. Why let an ill conceived gesture (one totally inappropriate in a sports venue) proceed if it will alienate donors, boosters and alumni?
This was the right move. It is the job of the basketball team to play basketball, not make political statements. If it meant so much to them, they can protest on their off time. They want to do it because of the attention. So, if any of them protested on their own time, I would have more respect for them. When you take advantage like this, no, you are just doing it for attention and not any substance.
Sorry guys, I will have to go back on my initial observation a bit. I forget that students that attend institutes of higher learning with a foundation of a certain religious denomination tend to already acknowledge that their inquiry into life is going to be circumcised at the start. As they tend to lean Right, can any less be expected? How much "Liberty" can be expressed at a place like Liberty university? You go in knowing that freedoms and options of expression that you would associate with college life is absent in religiously oriented schools. Can you do "Animal House" at a service academy? I doubt it. So, you enroll accepting a circumscribed existence.
Because students that attend such institutions are to be subject to rules of decorum not found at public or secular oriented institutions, the prerogative of the students are limited and certainly different.
So, I will have to say under the circumstances the students were wrong but ONLY under these circumstances.
This is something that cannot be condoned. In my view this is treason and sends a message to the world the it's free for all in America. Why can't these chaps be suspended from playing another game. I have long felt the Afro Americans at least some of them need to be chastened.
I am jumping in late, but I agree with the position that protesting at private homes should not be okay. Instances such as in this discussion seem to make Disturbing the Peace laws toothless efforts.
I also don't see any freedom of speech problems. Those protesters could still protest at their target's offices or other public places. I don't think the freedom of speech right of protests is a blanket right to intimidate and frighten—which is certainly the result of protesting at most private residences.
by Amanda Littlejohn 7 years ago
Which is more important, freedom of faith or freedom of speech?Many religious folks are decent, good people. Some of my best friends subscribe to institutionalised superstition - and are good humored enough to let me say that without taking offense. But most religions per se enshrine some deeply...
by Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago
What do you think about the NBA/NFL players who kneel when our national Anthem is played?Is it to show their disdain for the lawmen of our country when they enforce our laws? Or their disrespect for our country?Are they teaching our children to disobey our country’s laws, teaching them there should...
by Lukas Pelaitis 2 years ago
What basketball means to you?What basketball means to you? It`s just a hobby for you or part of the life?
by Josak 9 years ago
At this point most people will be agreeing with me, most of us believe in the first amendment and freedom of speech but it seems in the last few years something has turned around and people are shying away from the reality of what that means. It means we must be OK with violence being portrayed in...
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
How do you feel about the new NFL ruling requiring players on the field to stand during the playing of the national anthem. This ruling was not brought about by any government influence. It occurred because of economic pressure placed on the NFL by the fans of the NFL. These are...
by TMMason 10 years ago
-"ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (The Blaze/AP) — A state district judge Thursday ordered an Alamogordo man to immediately take down a billboard that implies his ex-girlfriend had an abortion.As we reported earlier this month, the sign on Alamogordo’s main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|