This is why I don't get the argument here. The First Amendment has NEVER applied per se to employers, elements of free speech in the office are regulated on a state-by-state basis. The worst consequences people can cite to their speech these days seems to be "getting fired" and "having your life ruined by cyberbullies" (as opposed to "getting jailed or shot by the government")--those do both suck, but neither of them directly apply to the First Amendment. If you wanted to fight those, my point was you'd have better luck passing state regulations to keep businesses in line with their firing practices, especially in excessive cases like the one I mentioned. Ultimately, a business is free to fire whoever they want under certain circumstances and should continue to be free to do so for a variety of reasons--as I'm sure many of the people making these arguments would agree with.
Also, to tie this all back into the thread, I want somebody fluent in doublespeak to say they are staunch defenders of extending the First Amendment to employers, and that they also support a candidate who wants to overturn libel precedents for the media, wants to commit violence against protestors, and who called Tiananmen a riot that had to put down strongly. I'm 110% behind any movement that can deliver me amusement like that.
As the subject of free speech has been brought up I think "Fighting words" doctrine should be expanded for modern diction. If someone tells me I have invaded their safe space that gives me legal immunity to kick their ass.
Weird. Your short posts are just as incomprehensible as your walls of text. I would have thought that impossible.
Yeah, I've been secretly typing in French, but your mind interprets it as garbled English. Our senses of humor don't get along apparently, which I don't actually find weird at all. Have fun hunting down safe spaces! go get em Tiger.
Neither were these guys "protesting". Sergio Giraldo, 23, of the 1900 block of West Argyle Street, was charged with two felony counts of aggravated battery to a peace officer, a felony count of resisting and obstructing a peace officer and two misdemeanor counts of resisting a peace officer. Sohaan Goss, 21, of the 10600 block of South Langley Avenue, was charged with a felony count of aggravated battery to a peace officer and five misdemeanor counts of resisting and obstructing a peace officer.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D0ZTKaMcqCM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> This was interesting to watch
No, they weren't, and they were punished accordingly thanks to the ample police presence deployed to defend Donald Trump's First Amendment rights.
<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Marco Rubio: Donald Trump has turned the election into "a complete fiasco" <a href="https://t.co/Syw4ZVotVC">https://t.co/Syw4ZVotVC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CNNSOTU?src=hash">#CNNSOTU</a> <a href="https://t.co/bdGN5cgoP8">https://t.co/bdGN5cgoP8</a></p>— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/709007952234070016">March 13, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Moveon.org thanks people for the violence, blames trump and them promises more of the same. http://front.moveon.org/moveon-trumps-hate-filled-rhetoric-on-notice-after-tonights-event/ I am not entirely sure how such a statement couldn't be considered fascist.
Hate breeds hate. Notice how there is no violence in Cruz rallies, Rubio rallies. There was none in Romeney rallies last election, McCain rallies the election before, the Bush rallies the two elections prior to that and so on. This is a result of the way the Trump campaign and his supporters have acted. http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/11/1499735/-Trump-Rally-No-Joking-Matter
What I find funny is the argument for peaceful assembly for Trump...Trump has a right to peacefully assemble! I guess we forget that Trump is for closing down Mosques right? This is the guy that wants to open up libel laws as well oh and "Close Up" the internet right? This is your free speech liberator? The guy that said there used to be consequences for protesting? What a joke.
There's a lot I would find "funny" about this whole Trump nonsense if I didn't think that it was so dangerous.
No doubt this is dangerous. It's been simmering since Bush ****ed up the economy and wasted American lives and trillions of dollars in the Middle East rather than putting it into places in America that truly deserve it. That the next president couldn't "fix" that mess isn't really a shocker. Everyone wants change but not the hard work involved.
This entire conversation is so stupid I can't believe people can have it. BOTH sides are in the wrong. Anybody in this conversation that doesn't admit that confrontation, escalation, and baiting is wrong is just another d-bag rooting for "their" side by pointing fingers at the other. Trump is wrong for his inflamatory rhetoric. His supporters getting rough with individual protesters/agitators is wrong. Move on and BLM organizers are wrong. The protestors showing up and causing a disturbance are wrong. Their rhetoric is wrong.
The protesters are provocative dicks--but a speaker who can't handle speaking to MoveOn members with Secret Service and a police force protecting them isn't a person with any "strength".
