These people weren't Secret Service, and Paul isn't President or Senator yet. The importance of him to the government isn't the same. The Secret Service are also bound by the same laws that bind police and security. Yes they would probably try to hold the woman back but I doubt they would throw her to the ground and step on her and if they did she would have good grounds to sue them for brutality.
As a private employer the DNC can decide who they hire and who they fire. I don't agree with it but that is their right. Anyway an employer firing someone isn't the same thing as a protester in a public setting. Seriously you think the First Amendment doesn't protect your right to embarrass people? That would be news to many comedians out there. As far as following people on a public sidewalk I think that depends on what the local codes are, as someone could ask for a restraining order after awhile. That said as the USSC articulated themselves in Citizens United political speech is an exceedingly protected realm of speech. Again though if you can cite KY law that would prevent what Valle did I would like to see it. In terms of getting extra security maybe but that still doesn't prevent people from expressing their opinions and doing so in ways that embarrass politicians.
I would think that both protesters and employees have First Amendment freedoms, so they do have that in common. These first amendment issues can get very convoluted but.... people (often and usually) pay to see a comedian. Valle's intent was to disrupt a process and gain notoriety by embarrassing Paul. Is he obligated to be her straight man? This whole "embarrassing politicians" thing has gotten out of hand with the power of the internet..... YouTube views and all that. I prefer not to give it its head because it will lead to the complete dissolution of civility and order in our election processes. Kind of ironic, huh? How about let's aim for restoring some of those time-honored values... There are some accepted logical limits to the extension of First Amendment freedoms, i.e. no shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre. This strikes me as one of those times and places where her right to protest should have limits for the greater good. Ultimately isn't the goal of free elections to embarrass your opponent with the superior quality of your ideas about governance rather than, figuratively, throwing a pie in his/her face? Two questions: how have we gotten so far away from civility and decorum? And why do we accept that distance much less seem to long to stretch it out even further?
I think there is some variation from state to state but in regard to private, not government jobs, you can fire someone over their speech as the First Amendment is a limitation on government not on private employers. He is not but this happens all the time. Rival campaigns have for decades done stunts like this or have people dress up in chicken suits and follow a candidate. In a related example Joe the Plumber set out to embarrass Obama so under your reasoning should Joe the Plumber not have been allowed to try to embarrass Obama? And I agree with you in principle. As I said such actions debase politics but they are protected by our rights. Was trying to hand Paul a sign shouting fire in a crowded theater? That limit is placed on because of the possible threat that could be caused by a stampede. Valle's actions weren't even close to creating that kind of threat . I agree but again such things are still legal. You have already answered that yourself. The Internet and 24 hour news cycle encourage this sort of behavior. I will go even farther to say that our culture as a whole encourages this sort of thing in general thanks to things like Jackass, Punk'd and going back to the days of Candid Camera. While I agree with you in principle though the problem is how do you address that while balancing our right to speech. YOu need to think of what you are asking. IF we are just to cordon off politicians to protect them from embarrassment don't you think that will have a chilling affect regarding debate? I can agree that we need a cultural change. I would push for that rather than trying to shape laws that would negatively affect rights. I would leave it as, yes you have the freedom to be an asshat but do you really want to do that.
Here are two good citizens "restoring sanity." The vocabulary might be offensive to some. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UPIP-i3sdVk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UPIP-i3sdVk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
Of course, those people have as much to do with Jon Stewart's rally as the Ku Klux Klan has to do with a TEA Party rally, but you don't care about accuracy, just about showing up the "other side."
I don't believe that the G20 protestors are indicative of mainstream leftists any more than I believe that racists are indicative of mainstream TEA Party members.
Nope. There was more violence at that one meeting than there have been at all the Tea Party meetings combined. That was my point.
Do you think the folks involved in these shootings are more likely to be Tea Partiers or Obama supporters?
Someone with a grudge against the Marines? Could be a former Marine, or a person who wanted to join but was not allowed? I have no idea which way their politics would be more likely to go.
Except most G20 violence comes from anarchists that are far from leftists. They are actually closer to libertarians.
Anarchists believe in no govt. or rules at all. That's far from the left who believes in large government, and closer to the Libertarians who believe in small or minimal government.
