Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Zarke    

Rank #13671 on Comments
Zarke Avatar Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to Zarke Block Zarke Invite Zarke to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:3/24/2010
Location:TROG
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#13671
Highest Content Rank:#12064
Highest Comment Rank:#2296
Content Thumbs: 17 total,  27 ,  10
Comment Thumbs: 3602 total,  4376 ,  774
Content Level Progress: 35.59% (21/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 68% (68/100)
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1
Content Views:1506
Total Comments Made:2310
FJ Points:3714

latest user's comments

#180 - My point doesn't address these people. You're creating a straw man.  [+] (14 new replies) 04/30/2014 on yep -1
#181 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Regardless of how what side is portrayed by whatever source you get your information from, the very idea of "First Amendment Zones" is outrageous. Those rights are supposed to be inalienable, not "applicable where convenient". "Widely used" or otherwise, they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't tolerate that kind of erosion of your civil liberties."

Actually, my point is that the authorities that set up the "First Amendment Zones" were going out of their way to give rights presented in the First Amendment to people who, by their actions and according to the very clear language of the First Amendment itself, had given up those rights. Thus, I have disproved (many times over) that there was nothing wrong in setting up these zones.

And "Those rights are supposed to be inalienable"? Then why does the First Amendment itself create situations by which one can forfeit the rights listed in the Amendment? Also, several Supreme Courts have made judgments that limit free speech. For instance, if you preach that we should hang niggers, and someone at your rally hangs a black person, you have criminal culpability for that act, as it can be proven that in using your right to free speech in an irresponsible manner have a criminal responsibility for the death caused by the person who hanged that black person.

This is the law of the land. Period, end of discussion. You can say whatever you want, however you want to, but you are wrong. The amendment was written with built in limits on the right it protects, and has been judged that further limits are completely just.

Now, what was that about strawman arguments? Considering how many you've made, I don't think you have any room to talk about that subject.
User avatar #184 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
The First protects your right to have ideas and preach them. You are, however, still responsible for the things you say. A threat is still a threat, a lynching is still a lynching. The First doesn't make crimes involving the spread of ideas legal, it merely protects the ability of the population to have individual thoughts and share them publicly. Whatever comes from those ideas lies beyond the wording of the Amendment. As such, I think you chose a bad example for your claim regarding Supreme Court rulings.

As for my own straw man arguments, where have I attacked a position I claim you've taken?
#187 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly"

When did I say this? No, I merely stated that this group had given up their right to peacefully assemble to petition the government, because in petitioning the government, this assembly of people had acted violent and threatened federal agents. This makes any rights of assembly under the first amendment null and void, because in the clear language of the first amendment any non peaceful assembly has no right to petition the government or protest. It is only a peaceful assembly that has these rights. The language of the first amendment makes this blatantly clear.

"you address that point (first amendment zones violating right of assembly)" I have done this many, many, many times, in many, many, many differing ways. If you are too idiotic to comprehend the logic behind my arguments and the facts upon which I build said logic, then that is not my problem.

"Would the Civil Rights Movements and Martin Luther King Jr. have had the same impact if the government said "Go ahead, protest, just over there, off to the side a bit... Farther... Farther... Good"? Do they keep protesters and people around them safe, or do they keep protesters out of the way, where they're not likely to draw attention to themselves? Nobody is completely free from bias, especially in government, and the people who designate an area for protest are bound to have an opinion on the topic one way or another. " this is a complete twisting of my logic, because the people in question were assembling and petitioning the government in a peaceful manner, it was those opposing them acting in an violent manner, who (in this day and age) would have been separated from the peaceful opposing protest.

Strawman tactics anyone? I literally went up the list of your comments. There are multiple attempts of yours to put words in my mouth or paint me as opposing perfectly lawful assemblies petitioning the government.
User avatar #191 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
"SEEMED TO IMPLY", stating that your wording was murky, causing confusion. Go ahead, call me retarded for not seeing the crystal clear logic behind your impeccably worded arguments and foolproof statements.

I was using the Civil Rights Movement example to illustrate my point that "First Amendment Zones" are detrimental to the sharing of ideas and the potential for societal good that arises from that kind of freedom, and that the government shouldn't have the right to dictate when and where the public exchange of information and ideas should take place. I'm sorry if you seemed to think that I wanted you to look like you hated black people and wanted to re-instate slavery, but that was not my intention.
#207 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And you have only recently stated this. Up until now you have been saying this about a situation in which your opinion was clearly in the wrong, it is only now that it has been quite obviously proved as bullshit (several dozen times over), that you moderate your stance.

More strawman tactics. Wonderful. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a young child? It would explain a lot.
User avatar #208 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
Technically that's "No true Scotsman", but I'm glad I taught you a new word.

However, my original post simply stated that the very idea of "Free Speech Zones" is outrageous, but I will admit that my thinking did get a little muddled as I was drawn in to your stance on the Bundy protest issue. You can scroll up to verify.

And why yes, I did notice that you were red-thumbing all my posts. Note that I haven't been doing the same, because while I may dislike your stance, I don't feel the need to express it in such a petty manner.
#205 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Wow, was it that hard to stop using strawman tactics and provide a source?

Ok, so in those specific situations the First Amendment zones were a violation of First Amendment rights, however your argument was that in ANY situation said zones are a violation of said rights. My argument this entire time has been that in this situation, it was not a violation of rights, but instead simultaneously granting rights to people who had given up said rights, and an effort to maintain control over a dangerous situation.

This is a simple point that I have made with basic facts and sound logic, yet you insist on comparing an apple to an orange, yet another strawman tactic. You have basically said "sense a man raped a woman, then all men are rapists!". I am not putting those words in your mouth, but that is the logic you have used. Nice strawman tactic.

This entire time I have been proving how, in this situation, there was no violation of rights, because those involved had given up the rights that were "violated", due to their behavior.

I hope you can finally comprehend this exceedingly simple point.
User avatar #206 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've conceded that this situation may be the exception to my "rule", but I would still go as far as to claim that the vast majority of cases where such zones are set up they are primarily intended to control dialog and keep protesters away from the public and media, which was my core message the whole time. Do you want me to search up every instance in which a "Free Speech Zone" has been established and draw further conclusions, or do you want to do some of the leg-work yourself?
#201 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Strawman tactic. "Oh, the evidence is there, but just because I'm using it to support my argument doesn't mean I have to provide the evidence."

Yeah, if you can't provide evidence that what you are saying is true (which I doubt, as it would have been all over the news and I didn't see anything about that, not that doubt he wouldn't have tried, but the ACLU would have taken his ass in front of the Supreme Court so fast his head would have still been spinning by the time he was impeached and sent back to Texas), then I have no reason to believe it is true, or accept the truth of your statements in any way.
#197 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Do you have a source for your accusations, or am I supposed to just take your word for it?
User avatar #198 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They're fairly well documented. You can simply Google "Bush Administration free speech zones" and start reading. Granted, other parties have used them as well, but I didn't really like Bush's policies, so I'll use him as an example because fuck him.
#194 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet again, you draw the focus away from the crux of the argument.

The First Amendment zones were used to diffuse a situation that otherwise would have ended in violence. Is this that hard to comprehend? Instead of going in guns blazing and arresting people, with federal agents and violent protestors both ending up killed/wounded/ect, they created a situation in which people who had given up their right to "peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances" could do so in a controlled manner (thus keeping it peaceful). If you can find a situation in which people assemble in a peaceful manner to petition the government for redress of grievances and are forced to do so in First Amendment zones then I will concede the point.

How ever, that has not happened.
User avatar #196 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They were used pretty heavily by the Bush administration during public addresses after the 9/11 attacks and around the 2004 elections, usually preemptively, before any violent intent could be established. Has not happened?
#179 - And yet even though you claim the First supports your claim th…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/30/2014 on yep -1
#182 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
The zones were set up after the assembly had become violent in nature, thus, they had given up their right to assemble peacefully, thus, they had no right to assemble at all, thus, the zones were actually giving them a right they had given up.

How hard is this to understand? The language of the First Amendment is clear on this subject and completely supports what was done in this situation.
User avatar #183 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've stated numerous times that I don't give a fuck about those particular protesters, so please stop making this about them. If they really are being so menacing and blatantly threatening, they shouldn't even be around to protest in the designated zones, and the violent ones should have been detained, as you seem to agree with. So why should that force the (probably few) peaceful ones remaining into protest corrals?
#185 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Seriously? How many times have I made my point blatantly clear? I have autistic cousins that would have understood what I was saying a couple hours ago.
Lets take this from the top.
This situation is the only one in which First Amendment zones have been set up. Your comment was about First Amendment zones being a violation of the First Amendment. The language of the First Amendment itself disproves that notion, due to it only protecting the rights of a group to assemble peacefully. As the group in question was not behaving in a peaceful manner, the group as a group had given up their right to assemble in the first place. Thus, setting up the first amendment zones was not encroaching on their right to assemble peacefully as a group, but giving that right to a group that had already given up that right.
Some of them, might have been peaceful, but how do you sort them out? "Hey you, you have a gun and are waving a sign just like the rest of the jackasses, but I don't hear you screaming about killing anyone, so go ahead and protest where ever you want"?
No, that makes no sense at all. In a situation you can only deal the the group as a group, as that is the only way to maintain control of a situation in which threats have been leveled against federal tax agents and law enforcement agents alike, not only for the safety of the federal agents, but the protesters themselves.
In a situation in which two differing groups are protesting opposite sides of an issue, the same thing applies. As the First Amendment only allows for peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, it is entirely legal to use regulations, keeping groups separate, ect, in order to keep any and all assemblies and demonstrations peaceful. Any first year law student will tell you exactly what I have.
User avatar #188 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
It merely states the "people", which in typically refers to the general population. "We, the people" and all the like. The First says nothing about groups. Laws are evaluated on an individual basis. Even when there are multiple people accused, they stand trial representing themselves.

How do you sort them out? I don't know, how about you detain the ones who are actively threatening people first? The ones who are actively breaking laws? I mean, it's a little harder than writing off rights, but it's better to actually do something about a problem instead of sweeping it under a rug, don't you think?
#202 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
So, instead the feds should have gone in guns shooting and got people killed.

Or, they could have done what they did and not violated any rights (as you have claimed they did) and not gotten anyone killed.

Hmm.... which is better, idiots spouting hate and everyone going home safe, or a bunch of body bags? Gee.... that is such a hard question

The italics imply sarcasm. Just wanted you to know sense you seem to have problems comprehending basic English. So what I was really saying is that instead of getting people killed, the smart choice is what was done; put them in a corner where they can yell and scream and the feds can keep everything under control and safe and everyone goes home after its all said and done.
User avatar #204 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I have conceded that it was a sound tactic in this situation, but I still disagree with the practice in general. However, as I don't really know all the facts and nuances surrounding the issue at hand, I can't provide a suitable alternative course of action at the moment. You don't need to keep going on about it.
#199 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Lets try this again.

The group in question was acting violently. They were using their personal free speech to utter threats (which is against the law).

Thus, instead of inciting violent acts against federal officers by arresting them, they diffused the situation with "First Amendment Zones". This in no way contradicted the First Amendment, as according to the First Amendment and judgements passed by various Supreme Courts as to how the First Amendment is applied, the people as a group, due to actions of the group had given up these rights.

Do I need to use smaller words so you can understand this simple concept?
User avatar #200 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
But a group is composed of individuals. The individuals were acting belligerent, so bag them and then see what the group becomes.

While in this instance it may have been a sound tactic, it does nothing to address the situation at hand, and I still disapprove of the practice on principal.
#192 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Only, as I have stated multiple times, no rights were "written off", instead of arresting people already threatening to use force against federal agents in the course of said agents performing lawful duties, which would have only ended in violence as said individuals were armed, the authorities chose to create a situation in which the violence was defused, instead of (metaphorically) throwing matches on a pile of wood soaked in napalm.

And, can one person "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances"? No, "assemble" implies a group, thus if a group assembles to petition, and does so in a violent manner, then said group loses its right to assemble. This is exceedingly simple logic, yet you refuse to comprehend it.
User avatar #195 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You're right, assemble does imply more than one. However, the rights of the individuals in that assembly still apply. Individuals represent themselves in court, even if they were part of a group.

And you do have a point about diffusing tension, but what does that do about the laws that were actually broken? Somebody's got to be held accountable for the threats made against federal officers eventually.
#176 - You seem to have misunderstood me, because I was stating that …  [+] (28 new replies) 04/30/2014 on yep -1
#178 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
To prove my point, once more, lets look at the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", this part we aren't going to touch as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" right here, this has already (through the Supreme Court) been changed, the press can be brought to task if they spread lies, and if you use your speech to incite violence then you are not free to use it and will do jail or prison time as is applicable to the nature of the incident.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" now here is what we are looking at, the portion of this amendment that applies to the situation at hand. Lets take a closer look.

"or the right of people peaceably to assemble" right there says it; if an assembly of people is not peaceful in nature, it is not covered or protected by this amendment. Period, end of story.

"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" this is subject to the prior part. In this situation the people in question were petitioning the government over the issue of confiscating property equal in value to fees owed to the federal government. As they were not peaceful in this petition, they have no right to assemble to present the petition, and thus are not protected in their right (in this situation) to petition the government with their grievances over the issue at hand.

Thus, by the clear language of the First Amendment, there was nothing illegal about the zones set up, and the authorities could have arrested all those involved.
User avatar #180 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
My point doesn't address these people. You're creating a straw man.
#181 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Regardless of how what side is portrayed by whatever source you get your information from, the very idea of "First Amendment Zones" is outrageous. Those rights are supposed to be inalienable, not "applicable where convenient". "Widely used" or otherwise, they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't tolerate that kind of erosion of your civil liberties."

Actually, my point is that the authorities that set up the "First Amendment Zones" were going out of their way to give rights presented in the First Amendment to people who, by their actions and according to the very clear language of the First Amendment itself, had given up those rights. Thus, I have disproved (many times over) that there was nothing wrong in setting up these zones.

And "Those rights are supposed to be inalienable"? Then why does the First Amendment itself create situations by which one can forfeit the rights listed in the Amendment? Also, several Supreme Courts have made judgments that limit free speech. For instance, if you preach that we should hang niggers, and someone at your rally hangs a black person, you have criminal culpability for that act, as it can be proven that in using your right to free speech in an irresponsible manner have a criminal responsibility for the death caused by the person who hanged that black person.

This is the law of the land. Period, end of discussion. You can say whatever you want, however you want to, but you are wrong. The amendment was written with built in limits on the right it protects, and has been judged that further limits are completely just.

Now, what was that about strawman arguments? Considering how many you've made, I don't think you have any room to talk about that subject.
User avatar #184 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
The First protects your right to have ideas and preach them. You are, however, still responsible for the things you say. A threat is still a threat, a lynching is still a lynching. The First doesn't make crimes involving the spread of ideas legal, it merely protects the ability of the population to have individual thoughts and share them publicly. Whatever comes from those ideas lies beyond the wording of the Amendment. As such, I think you chose a bad example for your claim regarding Supreme Court rulings.

As for my own straw man arguments, where have I attacked a position I claim you've taken?
#187 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly"

When did I say this? No, I merely stated that this group had given up their right to peacefully assemble to petition the government, because in petitioning the government, this assembly of people had acted violent and threatened federal agents. This makes any rights of assembly under the first amendment null and void, because in the clear language of the first amendment any non peaceful assembly has no right to petition the government or protest. It is only a peaceful assembly that has these rights. The language of the first amendment makes this blatantly clear.

"you address that point (first amendment zones violating right of assembly)" I have done this many, many, many times, in many, many, many differing ways. If you are too idiotic to comprehend the logic behind my arguments and the facts upon which I build said logic, then that is not my problem.

"Would the Civil Rights Movements and Martin Luther King Jr. have had the same impact if the government said "Go ahead, protest, just over there, off to the side a bit... Farther... Farther... Good"? Do they keep protesters and people around them safe, or do they keep protesters out of the way, where they're not likely to draw attention to themselves? Nobody is completely free from bias, especially in government, and the people who designate an area for protest are bound to have an opinion on the topic one way or another. " this is a complete twisting of my logic, because the people in question were assembling and petitioning the government in a peaceful manner, it was those opposing them acting in an violent manner, who (in this day and age) would have been separated from the peaceful opposing protest.

Strawman tactics anyone? I literally went up the list of your comments. There are multiple attempts of yours to put words in my mouth or paint me as opposing perfectly lawful assemblies petitioning the government.
User avatar #191 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
"SEEMED TO IMPLY", stating that your wording was murky, causing confusion. Go ahead, call me retarded for not seeing the crystal clear logic behind your impeccably worded arguments and foolproof statements.

I was using the Civil Rights Movement example to illustrate my point that "First Amendment Zones" are detrimental to the sharing of ideas and the potential for societal good that arises from that kind of freedom, and that the government shouldn't have the right to dictate when and where the public exchange of information and ideas should take place. I'm sorry if you seemed to think that I wanted you to look like you hated black people and wanted to re-instate slavery, but that was not my intention.
#207 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And you have only recently stated this. Up until now you have been saying this about a situation in which your opinion was clearly in the wrong, it is only now that it has been quite obviously proved as bullshit (several dozen times over), that you moderate your stance.

More strawman tactics. Wonderful. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a young child? It would explain a lot.
User avatar #208 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
Technically that's "No true Scotsman", but I'm glad I taught you a new word.

However, my original post simply stated that the very idea of "Free Speech Zones" is outrageous, but I will admit that my thinking did get a little muddled as I was drawn in to your stance on the Bundy protest issue. You can scroll up to verify.

And why yes, I did notice that you were red-thumbing all my posts. Note that I haven't been doing the same, because while I may dislike your stance, I don't feel the need to express it in such a petty manner.
#205 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Wow, was it that hard to stop using strawman tactics and provide a source?

Ok, so in those specific situations the First Amendment zones were a violation of First Amendment rights, however your argument was that in ANY situation said zones are a violation of said rights. My argument this entire time has been that in this situation, it was not a violation of rights, but instead simultaneously granting rights to people who had given up said rights, and an effort to maintain control over a dangerous situation.

This is a simple point that I have made with basic facts and sound logic, yet you insist on comparing an apple to an orange, yet another strawman tactic. You have basically said "sense a man raped a woman, then all men are rapists!". I am not putting those words in your mouth, but that is the logic you have used. Nice strawman tactic.

This entire time I have been proving how, in this situation, there was no violation of rights, because those involved had given up the rights that were "violated", due to their behavior.

I hope you can finally comprehend this exceedingly simple point.
User avatar #206 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've conceded that this situation may be the exception to my "rule", but I would still go as far as to claim that the vast majority of cases where such zones are set up they are primarily intended to control dialog and keep protesters away from the public and media, which was my core message the whole time. Do you want me to search up every instance in which a "Free Speech Zone" has been established and draw further conclusions, or do you want to do some of the leg-work yourself?
#201 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Strawman tactic. "Oh, the evidence is there, but just because I'm using it to support my argument doesn't mean I have to provide the evidence."

Yeah, if you can't provide evidence that what you are saying is true (which I doubt, as it would have been all over the news and I didn't see anything about that, not that doubt he wouldn't have tried, but the ACLU would have taken his ass in front of the Supreme Court so fast his head would have still been spinning by the time he was impeached and sent back to Texas), then I have no reason to believe it is true, or accept the truth of your statements in any way.
#197 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Do you have a source for your accusations, or am I supposed to just take your word for it?
User avatar #198 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They're fairly well documented. You can simply Google "Bush Administration free speech zones" and start reading. Granted, other parties have used them as well, but I didn't really like Bush's policies, so I'll use him as an example because fuck him.
#194 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet again, you draw the focus away from the crux of the argument.

The First Amendment zones were used to diffuse a situation that otherwise would have ended in violence. Is this that hard to comprehend? Instead of going in guns blazing and arresting people, with federal agents and violent protestors both ending up killed/wounded/ect, they created a situation in which people who had given up their right to "peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances" could do so in a controlled manner (thus keeping it peaceful). If you can find a situation in which people assemble in a peaceful manner to petition the government for redress of grievances and are forced to do so in First Amendment zones then I will concede the point.

How ever, that has not happened.
User avatar #196 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They were used pretty heavily by the Bush administration during public addresses after the 9/11 attacks and around the 2004 elections, usually preemptively, before any violent intent could be established. Has not happened?
#177 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
I have multiple times. You simple refuse to use basic logic and comprehension of the English language in order to understand what I am saying. Sorry if making the same point over and over gets frustrating. Let me try to make this clear for you.

When did I state that the First Amendment only governs assemblies of any kind? No, the point I have made (several times over) was that these people, due to their behavior, had forfeited their right to assemble and petition the government, because that right only exists if the assembly and manner of petition is peaceful in nature. This is stated quite clearly in the amendment itself. The point I have made several times, that you refuse or are incapable of comprehending due to a general lack of intelligence, is that instead of doing what was perfectly legal under the First Amendment, as well as applicable laws; arresting these people and putting them all away for serious federal prison time, they instead created a controlled situation where these people could assemble and protest in a decidedly aggressive, and anything other than peaceful manner, yet maintain control over the situation and keep it from escalating into open violence.

Had these people not been waving around weapons, making threats, ect, then yes, having "First Amendment" zones would be in violation of the First Amendment as long as no one was protesting the other side of the issue in that area at that time However, the First Amendment makes provision for the government to control a situation as to make sure that people are allowed to protest and assemble, yet maintain the peace at the same time, such as my example of keeping people protesting opposing sides of an issue separate from each other.

This is an EXTREMELY simple point, one that is quite clear if you actually take the time to read and understand the language the First Amendment was written in. You have obviously not done this, which is why I have called you out on your blatant stupidity.
User avatar #179 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet even though you claim the First supports your claim that it does allow for designated protest zones, those blatantly abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble, in the exact wording of the Amendment. The wording is quite black and white, no matter how old it may be. It doesn't matter if there is an opposing viewpoint present, nobody should tell anybody who can assemble where, and trust the individual protesters to follow the laws prohibiting wanton violence and destruction.
#182 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
The zones were set up after the assembly had become violent in nature, thus, they had given up their right to assemble peacefully, thus, they had no right to assemble at all, thus, the zones were actually giving them a right they had given up.

How hard is this to understand? The language of the First Amendment is clear on this subject and completely supports what was done in this situation.
User avatar #183 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've stated numerous times that I don't give a fuck about those particular protesters, so please stop making this about them. If they really are being so menacing and blatantly threatening, they shouldn't even be around to protest in the designated zones, and the violent ones should have been detained, as you seem to agree with. So why should that force the (probably few) peaceful ones remaining into protest corrals?
#185 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Seriously? How many times have I made my point blatantly clear? I have autistic cousins that would have understood what I was saying a couple hours ago.
Lets take this from the top.
This situation is the only one in which First Amendment zones have been set up. Your comment was about First Amendment zones being a violation of the First Amendment. The language of the First Amendment itself disproves that notion, due to it only protecting the rights of a group to assemble peacefully. As the group in question was not behaving in a peaceful manner, the group as a group had given up their right to assemble in the first place. Thus, setting up the first amendment zones was not encroaching on their right to assemble peacefully as a group, but giving that right to a group that had already given up that right.
Some of them, might have been peaceful, but how do you sort them out? "Hey you, you have a gun and are waving a sign just like the rest of the jackasses, but I don't hear you screaming about killing anyone, so go ahead and protest where ever you want"?
No, that makes no sense at all. In a situation you can only deal the the group as a group, as that is the only way to maintain control of a situation in which threats have been leveled against federal tax agents and law enforcement agents alike, not only for the safety of the federal agents, but the protesters themselves.
In a situation in which two differing groups are protesting opposite sides of an issue, the same thing applies. As the First Amendment only allows for peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, it is entirely legal to use regulations, keeping groups separate, ect, in order to keep any and all assemblies and demonstrations peaceful. Any first year law student will tell you exactly what I have.
User avatar #188 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
It merely states the "people", which in typically refers to the general population. "We, the people" and all the like. The First says nothing about groups. Laws are evaluated on an individual basis. Even when there are multiple people accused, they stand trial representing themselves.

How do you sort them out? I don't know, how about you detain the ones who are actively threatening people first? The ones who are actively breaking laws? I mean, it's a little harder than writing off rights, but it's better to actually do something about a problem instead of sweeping it under a rug, don't you think?
#202 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
So, instead the feds should have gone in guns shooting and got people killed.

Or, they could have done what they did and not violated any rights (as you have claimed they did) and not gotten anyone killed.

Hmm.... which is better, idiots spouting hate and everyone going home safe, or a bunch of body bags? Gee.... that is such a hard question

The italics imply sarcasm. Just wanted you to know sense you seem to have problems comprehending basic English. So what I was really saying is that instead of getting people killed, the smart choice is what was done; put them in a corner where they can yell and scream and the feds can keep everything under control and safe and everyone goes home after its all said and done.
User avatar #204 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I have conceded that it was a sound tactic in this situation, but I still disagree with the practice in general. However, as I don't really know all the facts and nuances surrounding the issue at hand, I can't provide a suitable alternative course of action at the moment. You don't need to keep going on about it.
#199 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Lets try this again.

The group in question was acting violently. They were using their personal free speech to utter threats (which is against the law).

Thus, instead of inciting violent acts against federal officers by arresting them, they diffused the situation with "First Amendment Zones". This in no way contradicted the First Amendment, as according to the First Amendment and judgements passed by various Supreme Courts as to how the First Amendment is applied, the people as a group, due to actions of the group had given up these rights.

Do I need to use smaller words so you can understand this simple concept?
User avatar #200 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
But a group is composed of individuals. The individuals were acting belligerent, so bag them and then see what the group becomes.

While in this instance it may have been a sound tactic, it does nothing to address the situation at hand, and I still disapprove of the practice on principal.
#192 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Only, as I have stated multiple times, no rights were "written off", instead of arresting people already threatening to use force against federal agents in the course of said agents performing lawful duties, which would have only ended in violence as said individuals were armed, the authorities chose to create a situation in which the violence was defused, instead of (metaphorically) throwing matches on a pile of wood soaked in napalm.

And, can one person "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances"? No, "assemble" implies a group, thus if a group assembles to petition, and does so in a violent manner, then said group loses its right to assemble. This is exceedingly simple logic, yet you refuse to comprehend it.
User avatar #195 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You're right, assemble does imply more than one. However, the rights of the individuals in that assembly still apply. Individuals represent themselves in court, even if they were part of a group.

And you do have a point about diffusing tension, but what does that do about the laws that were actually broken? Somebody's got to be held accountable for the threats made against federal officers eventually.
#174 - I personally believe in personal accountability. If you commit…  [+] (30 new replies) 04/30/2014 on yep -1
#175 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

How stupid are you? It says right there that any assembly (which includes protests to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), must be peaceful, otherwise it is not protected by the First Amendment. This was not, there were threats uttered and weapons waved around.

Thus, they did NOT have the right to assemble, because the right is limited to assemble in a peaceful manner. Therefore, they committed numerous crimes, and as you believe in personal accountability, you therefore agree with me that they should have been arrested

Therefore, you have, by citing the First Amendment, proven my point. Thank you for playing, try learning how to actually know what the fuck you are talking about. It helps you look like you are smarter than the kid in elementary school who had to wear a helmet 24/7, because he didn't understand that smashing his head into things hurt.
User avatar #176 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You seem to have misunderstood me, because I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly.

However, you seem to be missing my point entirely. Yes, I agree that these people are behaving in an illegal manner, and should be arrested and face the repercussions of their actions, but that has nothing to do with the core of my statement, in that I was pointing out that "First Amendment Zones" are unconstitutional in that they allow the rarely unbiased governing body to direct and effectively hide the protesters from the media and other possible audiences. So, how about instead of getting angry, calling me retarded, and creating straw men, you address that point?
#178 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
To prove my point, once more, lets look at the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", this part we aren't going to touch as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" right here, this has already (through the Supreme Court) been changed, the press can be brought to task if they spread lies, and if you use your speech to incite violence then you are not free to use it and will do jail or prison time as is applicable to the nature of the incident.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" now here is what we are looking at, the portion of this amendment that applies to the situation at hand. Lets take a closer look.

"or the right of people peaceably to assemble" right there says it; if an assembly of people is not peaceful in nature, it is not covered or protected by this amendment. Period, end of story.

"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" this is subject to the prior part. In this situation the people in question were petitioning the government over the issue of confiscating property equal in value to fees owed to the federal government. As they were not peaceful in this petition, they have no right to assemble to present the petition, and thus are not protected in their right (in this situation) to petition the government with their grievances over the issue at hand.

Thus, by the clear language of the First Amendment, there was nothing illegal about the zones set up, and the authorities could have arrested all those involved.
User avatar #180 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
My point doesn't address these people. You're creating a straw man.
#181 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Regardless of how what side is portrayed by whatever source you get your information from, the very idea of "First Amendment Zones" is outrageous. Those rights are supposed to be inalienable, not "applicable where convenient". "Widely used" or otherwise, they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't tolerate that kind of erosion of your civil liberties."

Actually, my point is that the authorities that set up the "First Amendment Zones" were going out of their way to give rights presented in the First Amendment to people who, by their actions and according to the very clear language of the First Amendment itself, had given up those rights. Thus, I have disproved (many times over) that there was nothing wrong in setting up these zones.

And "Those rights are supposed to be inalienable"? Then why does the First Amendment itself create situations by which one can forfeit the rights listed in the Amendment? Also, several Supreme Courts have made judgments that limit free speech. For instance, if you preach that we should hang niggers, and someone at your rally hangs a black person, you have criminal culpability for that act, as it can be proven that in using your right to free speech in an irresponsible manner have a criminal responsibility for the death caused by the person who hanged that black person.

This is the law of the land. Period, end of discussion. You can say whatever you want, however you want to, but you are wrong. The amendment was written with built in limits on the right it protects, and has been judged that further limits are completely just.

Now, what was that about strawman arguments? Considering how many you've made, I don't think you have any room to talk about that subject.
User avatar #184 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
The First protects your right to have ideas and preach them. You are, however, still responsible for the things you say. A threat is still a threat, a lynching is still a lynching. The First doesn't make crimes involving the spread of ideas legal, it merely protects the ability of the population to have individual thoughts and share them publicly. Whatever comes from those ideas lies beyond the wording of the Amendment. As such, I think you chose a bad example for your claim regarding Supreme Court rulings.

As for my own straw man arguments, where have I attacked a position I claim you've taken?
#187 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly"

When did I say this? No, I merely stated that this group had given up their right to peacefully assemble to petition the government, because in petitioning the government, this assembly of people had acted violent and threatened federal agents. This makes any rights of assembly under the first amendment null and void, because in the clear language of the first amendment any non peaceful assembly has no right to petition the government or protest. It is only a peaceful assembly that has these rights. The language of the first amendment makes this blatantly clear.

"you address that point (first amendment zones violating right of assembly)" I have done this many, many, many times, in many, many, many differing ways. If you are too idiotic to comprehend the logic behind my arguments and the facts upon which I build said logic, then that is not my problem.

"Would the Civil Rights Movements and Martin Luther King Jr. have had the same impact if the government said "Go ahead, protest, just over there, off to the side a bit... Farther... Farther... Good"? Do they keep protesters and people around them safe, or do they keep protesters out of the way, where they're not likely to draw attention to themselves? Nobody is completely free from bias, especially in government, and the people who designate an area for protest are bound to have an opinion on the topic one way or another. " this is a complete twisting of my logic, because the people in question were assembling and petitioning the government in a peaceful manner, it was those opposing them acting in an violent manner, who (in this day and age) would have been separated from the peaceful opposing protest.

Strawman tactics anyone? I literally went up the list of your comments. There are multiple attempts of yours to put words in my mouth or paint me as opposing perfectly lawful assemblies petitioning the government.
User avatar #191 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
"SEEMED TO IMPLY", stating that your wording was murky, causing confusion. Go ahead, call me retarded for not seeing the crystal clear logic behind your impeccably worded arguments and foolproof statements.

I was using the Civil Rights Movement example to illustrate my point that "First Amendment Zones" are detrimental to the sharing of ideas and the potential for societal good that arises from that kind of freedom, and that the government shouldn't have the right to dictate when and where the public exchange of information and ideas should take place. I'm sorry if you seemed to think that I wanted you to look like you hated black people and wanted to re-instate slavery, but that was not my intention.
#207 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And you have only recently stated this. Up until now you have been saying this about a situation in which your opinion was clearly in the wrong, it is only now that it has been quite obviously proved as bullshit (several dozen times over), that you moderate your stance.

More strawman tactics. Wonderful. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a young child? It would explain a lot.
User avatar #208 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
Technically that's "No true Scotsman", but I'm glad I taught you a new word.

However, my original post simply stated that the very idea of "Free Speech Zones" is outrageous, but I will admit that my thinking did get a little muddled as I was drawn in to your stance on the Bundy protest issue. You can scroll up to verify.

And why yes, I did notice that you were red-thumbing all my posts. Note that I haven't been doing the same, because while I may dislike your stance, I don't feel the need to express it in such a petty manner.
#205 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Wow, was it that hard to stop using strawman tactics and provide a source?

Ok, so in those specific situations the First Amendment zones were a violation of First Amendment rights, however your argument was that in ANY situation said zones are a violation of said rights. My argument this entire time has been that in this situation, it was not a violation of rights, but instead simultaneously granting rights to people who had given up said rights, and an effort to maintain control over a dangerous situation.

This is a simple point that I have made with basic facts and sound logic, yet you insist on comparing an apple to an orange, yet another strawman tactic. You have basically said "sense a man raped a woman, then all men are rapists!". I am not putting those words in your mouth, but that is the logic you have used. Nice strawman tactic.

This entire time I have been proving how, in this situation, there was no violation of rights, because those involved had given up the rights that were "violated", due to their behavior.

I hope you can finally comprehend this exceedingly simple point.
User avatar #206 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've conceded that this situation may be the exception to my "rule", but I would still go as far as to claim that the vast majority of cases where such zones are set up they are primarily intended to control dialog and keep protesters away from the public and media, which was my core message the whole time. Do you want me to search up every instance in which a "Free Speech Zone" has been established and draw further conclusions, or do you want to do some of the leg-work yourself?
#201 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Strawman tactic. "Oh, the evidence is there, but just because I'm using it to support my argument doesn't mean I have to provide the evidence."

Yeah, if you can't provide evidence that what you are saying is true (which I doubt, as it would have been all over the news and I didn't see anything about that, not that doubt he wouldn't have tried, but the ACLU would have taken his ass in front of the Supreme Court so fast his head would have still been spinning by the time he was impeached and sent back to Texas), then I have no reason to believe it is true, or accept the truth of your statements in any way.
#197 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Do you have a source for your accusations, or am I supposed to just take your word for it?
User avatar #198 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They're fairly well documented. You can simply Google "Bush Administration free speech zones" and start reading. Granted, other parties have used them as well, but I didn't really like Bush's policies, so I'll use him as an example because fuck him.
#194 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet again, you draw the focus away from the crux of the argument.

The First Amendment zones were used to diffuse a situation that otherwise would have ended in violence. Is this that hard to comprehend? Instead of going in guns blazing and arresting people, with federal agents and violent protestors both ending up killed/wounded/ect, they created a situation in which people who had given up their right to "peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances" could do so in a controlled manner (thus keeping it peaceful). If you can find a situation in which people assemble in a peaceful manner to petition the government for redress of grievances and are forced to do so in First Amendment zones then I will concede the point.

How ever, that has not happened.
User avatar #196 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They were used pretty heavily by the Bush administration during public addresses after the 9/11 attacks and around the 2004 elections, usually preemptively, before any violent intent could be established. Has not happened?
#177 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
I have multiple times. You simple refuse to use basic logic and comprehension of the English language in order to understand what I am saying. Sorry if making the same point over and over gets frustrating. Let me try to make this clear for you.

When did I state that the First Amendment only governs assemblies of any kind? No, the point I have made (several times over) was that these people, due to their behavior, had forfeited their right to assemble and petition the government, because that right only exists if the assembly and manner of petition is peaceful in nature. This is stated quite clearly in the amendment itself. The point I have made several times, that you refuse or are incapable of comprehending due to a general lack of intelligence, is that instead of doing what was perfectly legal under the First Amendment, as well as applicable laws; arresting these people and putting them all away for serious federal prison time, they instead created a controlled situation where these people could assemble and protest in a decidedly aggressive, and anything other than peaceful manner, yet maintain control over the situation and keep it from escalating into open violence.

Had these people not been waving around weapons, making threats, ect, then yes, having "First Amendment" zones would be in violation of the First Amendment as long as no one was protesting the other side of the issue in that area at that time However, the First Amendment makes provision for the government to control a situation as to make sure that people are allowed to protest and assemble, yet maintain the peace at the same time, such as my example of keeping people protesting opposing sides of an issue separate from each other.

This is an EXTREMELY simple point, one that is quite clear if you actually take the time to read and understand the language the First Amendment was written in. You have obviously not done this, which is why I have called you out on your blatant stupidity.
User avatar #179 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet even though you claim the First supports your claim that it does allow for designated protest zones, those blatantly abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble, in the exact wording of the Amendment. The wording is quite black and white, no matter how old it may be. It doesn't matter if there is an opposing viewpoint present, nobody should tell anybody who can assemble where, and trust the individual protesters to follow the laws prohibiting wanton violence and destruction.
#182 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
The zones were set up after the assembly had become violent in nature, thus, they had given up their right to assemble peacefully, thus, they had no right to assemble at all, thus, the zones were actually giving them a right they had given up.

How hard is this to understand? The language of the First Amendment is clear on this subject and completely supports what was done in this situation.
User avatar #183 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've stated numerous times that I don't give a fuck about those particular protesters, so please stop making this about them. If they really are being so menacing and blatantly threatening, they shouldn't even be around to protest in the designated zones, and the violent ones should have been detained, as you seem to agree with. So why should that force the (probably few) peaceful ones remaining into protest corrals?
#185 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Seriously? How many times have I made my point blatantly clear? I have autistic cousins that would have understood what I was saying a couple hours ago.
Lets take this from the top.
This situation is the only one in which First Amendment zones have been set up. Your comment was about First Amendment zones being a violation of the First Amendment. The language of the First Amendment itself disproves that notion, due to it only protecting the rights of a group to assemble peacefully. As the group in question was not behaving in a peaceful manner, the group as a group had given up their right to assemble in the first place. Thus, setting up the first amendment zones was not encroaching on their right to assemble peacefully as a group, but giving that right to a group that had already given up that right.
Some of them, might have been peaceful, but how do you sort them out? "Hey you, you have a gun and are waving a sign just like the rest of the jackasses, but I don't hear you screaming about killing anyone, so go ahead and protest where ever you want"?
No, that makes no sense at all. In a situation you can only deal the the group as a group, as that is the only way to maintain control of a situation in which threats have been leveled against federal tax agents and law enforcement agents alike, not only for the safety of the federal agents, but the protesters themselves.
In a situation in which two differing groups are protesting opposite sides of an issue, the same thing applies. As the First Amendment only allows for peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, it is entirely legal to use regulations, keeping groups separate, ect, in order to keep any and all assemblies and demonstrations peaceful. Any first year law student will tell you exactly what I have.
User avatar #188 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
It merely states the "people", which in typically refers to the general population. "We, the people" and all the like. The First says nothing about groups. Laws are evaluated on an individual basis. Even when there are multiple people accused, they stand trial representing themselves.

How do you sort them out? I don't know, how about you detain the ones who are actively threatening people first? The ones who are actively breaking laws? I mean, it's a little harder than writing off rights, but it's better to actually do something about a problem instead of sweeping it under a rug, don't you think?
#202 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
So, instead the feds should have gone in guns shooting and got people killed.

Or, they could have done what they did and not violated any rights (as you have claimed they did) and not gotten anyone killed.

Hmm.... which is better, idiots spouting hate and everyone going home safe, or a bunch of body bags? Gee.... that is such a hard question

The italics imply sarcasm. Just wanted you to know sense you seem to have problems comprehending basic English. So what I was really saying is that instead of getting people killed, the smart choice is what was done; put them in a corner where they can yell and scream and the feds can keep everything under control and safe and everyone goes home after its all said and done.
User avatar #204 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I have conceded that it was a sound tactic in this situation, but I still disagree with the practice in general. However, as I don't really know all the facts and nuances surrounding the issue at hand, I can't provide a suitable alternative course of action at the moment. You don't need to keep going on about it.
#199 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Lets try this again.

The group in question was acting violently. They were using their personal free speech to utter threats (which is against the law).

Thus, instead of inciting violent acts against federal officers by arresting them, they diffused the situation with "First Amendment Zones". This in no way contradicted the First Amendment, as according to the First Amendment and judgements passed by various Supreme Courts as to how the First Amendment is applied, the people as a group, due to actions of the group had given up these rights.

Do I need to use smaller words so you can understand this simple concept?
User avatar #200 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
But a group is composed of individuals. The individuals were acting belligerent, so bag them and then see what the group becomes.

While in this instance it may have been a sound tactic, it does nothing to address the situation at hand, and I still disapprove of the practice on principal.
#192 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Only, as I have stated multiple times, no rights were "written off", instead of arresting people already threatening to use force against federal agents in the course of said agents performing lawful duties, which would have only ended in violence as said individuals were armed, the authorities chose to create a situation in which the violence was defused, instead of (metaphorically) throwing matches on a pile of wood soaked in napalm.

And, can one person "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances"? No, "assemble" implies a group, thus if a group assembles to petition, and does so in a violent manner, then said group loses its right to assemble. This is exceedingly simple logic, yet you refuse to comprehend it.
User avatar #195 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You're right, assemble does imply more than one. However, the rights of the individuals in that assembly still apply. Individuals represent themselves in court, even if they were part of a group.

And you do have a point about diffusing tension, but what does that do about the laws that were actually broken? Somebody's got to be held accountable for the threats made against federal officers eventually.
#171 - I say let them riot. The rule of the strong is the most stable…  [+] (32 new replies) 04/30/2014 on yep -1
#172 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Ah, so in other words if people die because, instead of separating two opposing groups of demonstrators, we let them all get in each other's faces, then its all good?

Also, note the fact that you only have the right (under the first amendment) to protest peacefully? So, in fact, as these men in this situation were spewing threats, waving guns around, ect, they actually had no right to protest; as it was not a peaceful protest. Instead of doing what was perfectly legal (arresting them all for disturbing the peace, inciting a riot, making threats against federal agents, and other offenses, all felonies which, with or without conspiracy charges that could easily be applied in this situation, could have ended up with all of them spending upwards of five years, and as much as ten or more, in federal prison with no chance of early release for good behavior, plus an additional five years parole after their release with almost any prosecutor being able to argue for zero tolerance parole, meaning that if they violate parole they have to do the rest of their parole in prison, then get back out on parole again), they were nice enough to create a situation where these idiots could vent their frustrations and protest, while still maintaining order.

So, in the end, as the Constitution of the United States of America, and the amendments there of apply, as well as all applicable laws, the authorities could have treated these people MUCH more harshly than they did, and instead went out of their way to allow these people access to a right they had forfeited by the manner in which they attempted to use said right, as well as numerous crimes they committed, as well as continue to commit.

Do you know that these "militia" have taken over a town nearby, demanding to see papers proving residence from anyone entering said town, to the point that the mayor of that town has sent a letter to the county sheriff, the state police, and the FBI, begging them to come save his town?
User avatar #174 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I personally believe in personal accountability. If you commit a crime, you've got to face the consequences. Likewise, you have to account for the risk in a given action and decide whether or not it's safe to proceed in the current situation.

Worded as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't just govern protest, as you seem to imply. Now, as for the protesters themselves in the issue on hand, I think they're being jackasses. However, I'm not going to let them spoil the right for anyone else to protest freely on their own terms, where they'd like, when they'd like, and how they'd like. Let them suffer the social and legal ramifications of "spewing threats, waving guns around, etc." and taking "over a town nearby, demanding to see papers", etc.

I will reiterate, however, that the crimes of the few shouldn't justify eroding the freedoms of the many. We haven't banned cars and/or alcohol because some people drive intoxicated by the wheel and kill people when they get into accidents. Likewise, you don't let some racist, militant hicks cow your governing body into requiring a mandate to peacefully protest on your own terms. We already have laws for riots and threats and general buffoon-ish behavior.
#175 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

How stupid are you? It says right there that any assembly (which includes protests to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), must be peaceful, otherwise it is not protected by the First Amendment. This was not, there were threats uttered and weapons waved around.

Thus, they did NOT have the right to assemble, because the right is limited to assemble in a peaceful manner. Therefore, they committed numerous crimes, and as you believe in personal accountability, you therefore agree with me that they should have been arrested

Therefore, you have, by citing the First Amendment, proven my point. Thank you for playing, try learning how to actually know what the fuck you are talking about. It helps you look like you are smarter than the kid in elementary school who had to wear a helmet 24/7, because he didn't understand that smashing his head into things hurt.
User avatar #176 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You seem to have misunderstood me, because I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly.

However, you seem to be missing my point entirely. Yes, I agree that these people are behaving in an illegal manner, and should be arrested and face the repercussions of their actions, but that has nothing to do with the core of my statement, in that I was pointing out that "First Amendment Zones" are unconstitutional in that they allow the rarely unbiased governing body to direct and effectively hide the protesters from the media and other possible audiences. So, how about instead of getting angry, calling me retarded, and creating straw men, you address that point?
#178 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
To prove my point, once more, lets look at the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", this part we aren't going to touch as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" right here, this has already (through the Supreme Court) been changed, the press can be brought to task if they spread lies, and if you use your speech to incite violence then you are not free to use it and will do jail or prison time as is applicable to the nature of the incident.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" now here is what we are looking at, the portion of this amendment that applies to the situation at hand. Lets take a closer look.

"or the right of people peaceably to assemble" right there says it; if an assembly of people is not peaceful in nature, it is not covered or protected by this amendment. Period, end of story.

"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" this is subject to the prior part. In this situation the people in question were petitioning the government over the issue of confiscating property equal in value to fees owed to the federal government. As they were not peaceful in this petition, they have no right to assemble to present the petition, and thus are not protected in their right (in this situation) to petition the government with their grievances over the issue at hand.

Thus, by the clear language of the First Amendment, there was nothing illegal about the zones set up, and the authorities could have arrested all those involved.
User avatar #180 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
My point doesn't address these people. You're creating a straw man.
#181 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Regardless of how what side is portrayed by whatever source you get your information from, the very idea of "First Amendment Zones" is outrageous. Those rights are supposed to be inalienable, not "applicable where convenient". "Widely used" or otherwise, they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't tolerate that kind of erosion of your civil liberties."

Actually, my point is that the authorities that set up the "First Amendment Zones" were going out of their way to give rights presented in the First Amendment to people who, by their actions and according to the very clear language of the First Amendment itself, had given up those rights. Thus, I have disproved (many times over) that there was nothing wrong in setting up these zones.

And "Those rights are supposed to be inalienable"? Then why does the First Amendment itself create situations by which one can forfeit the rights listed in the Amendment? Also, several Supreme Courts have made judgments that limit free speech. For instance, if you preach that we should hang niggers, and someone at your rally hangs a black person, you have criminal culpability for that act, as it can be proven that in using your right to free speech in an irresponsible manner have a criminal responsibility for the death caused by the person who hanged that black person.

This is the law of the land. Period, end of discussion. You can say whatever you want, however you want to, but you are wrong. The amendment was written with built in limits on the right it protects, and has been judged that further limits are completely just.

Now, what was that about strawman arguments? Considering how many you've made, I don't think you have any room to talk about that subject.
User avatar #184 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
The First protects your right to have ideas and preach them. You are, however, still responsible for the things you say. A threat is still a threat, a lynching is still a lynching. The First doesn't make crimes involving the spread of ideas legal, it merely protects the ability of the population to have individual thoughts and share them publicly. Whatever comes from those ideas lies beyond the wording of the Amendment. As such, I think you chose a bad example for your claim regarding Supreme Court rulings.

As for my own straw man arguments, where have I attacked a position I claim you've taken?
#187 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly"

When did I say this? No, I merely stated that this group had given up their right to peacefully assemble to petition the government, because in petitioning the government, this assembly of people had acted violent and threatened federal agents. This makes any rights of assembly under the first amendment null and void, because in the clear language of the first amendment any non peaceful assembly has no right to petition the government or protest. It is only a peaceful assembly that has these rights. The language of the first amendment makes this blatantly clear.

"you address that point (first amendment zones violating right of assembly)" I have done this many, many, many times, in many, many, many differing ways. If you are too idiotic to comprehend the logic behind my arguments and the facts upon which I build said logic, then that is not my problem.

"Would the Civil Rights Movements and Martin Luther King Jr. have had the same impact if the government said "Go ahead, protest, just over there, off to the side a bit... Farther... Farther... Good"? Do they keep protesters and people around them safe, or do they keep protesters out of the way, where they're not likely to draw attention to themselves? Nobody is completely free from bias, especially in government, and the people who designate an area for protest are bound to have an opinion on the topic one way or another. " this is a complete twisting of my logic, because the people in question were assembling and petitioning the government in a peaceful manner, it was those opposing them acting in an violent manner, who (in this day and age) would have been separated from the peaceful opposing protest.

Strawman tactics anyone? I literally went up the list of your comments. There are multiple attempts of yours to put words in my mouth or paint me as opposing perfectly lawful assemblies petitioning the government.
User avatar #191 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
"SEEMED TO IMPLY", stating that your wording was murky, causing confusion. Go ahead, call me retarded for not seeing the crystal clear logic behind your impeccably worded arguments and foolproof statements.

I was using the Civil Rights Movement example to illustrate my point that "First Amendment Zones" are detrimental to the sharing of ideas and the potential for societal good that arises from that kind of freedom, and that the government shouldn't have the right to dictate when and where the public exchange of information and ideas should take place. I'm sorry if you seemed to think that I wanted you to look like you hated black people and wanted to re-instate slavery, but that was not my intention.
#207 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And you have only recently stated this. Up until now you have been saying this about a situation in which your opinion was clearly in the wrong, it is only now that it has been quite obviously proved as bullshit (several dozen times over), that you moderate your stance.

More strawman tactics. Wonderful. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a young child? It would explain a lot.
User avatar #208 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
Technically that's "No true Scotsman", but I'm glad I taught you a new word.

However, my original post simply stated that the very idea of "Free Speech Zones" is outrageous, but I will admit that my thinking did get a little muddled as I was drawn in to your stance on the Bundy protest issue. You can scroll up to verify.

And why yes, I did notice that you were red-thumbing all my posts. Note that I haven't been doing the same, because while I may dislike your stance, I don't feel the need to express it in such a petty manner.
#205 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Wow, was it that hard to stop using strawman tactics and provide a source?

Ok, so in those specific situations the First Amendment zones were a violation of First Amendment rights, however your argument was that in ANY situation said zones are a violation of said rights. My argument this entire time has been that in this situation, it was not a violation of rights, but instead simultaneously granting rights to people who had given up said rights, and an effort to maintain control over a dangerous situation.

This is a simple point that I have made with basic facts and sound logic, yet you insist on comparing an apple to an orange, yet another strawman tactic. You have basically said "sense a man raped a woman, then all men are rapists!". I am not putting those words in your mouth, but that is the logic you have used. Nice strawman tactic.

This entire time I have been proving how, in this situation, there was no violation of rights, because those involved had given up the rights that were "violated", due to their behavior.

I hope you can finally comprehend this exceedingly simple point.
User avatar #206 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've conceded that this situation may be the exception to my "rule", but I would still go as far as to claim that the vast majority of cases where such zones are set up they are primarily intended to control dialog and keep protesters away from the public and media, which was my core message the whole time. Do you want me to search up every instance in which a "Free Speech Zone" has been established and draw further conclusions, or do you want to do some of the leg-work yourself?
#201 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Strawman tactic. "Oh, the evidence is there, but just because I'm using it to support my argument doesn't mean I have to provide the evidence."

Yeah, if you can't provide evidence that what you are saying is true (which I doubt, as it would have been all over the news and I didn't see anything about that, not that doubt he wouldn't have tried, but the ACLU would have taken his ass in front of the Supreme Court so fast his head would have still been spinning by the time he was impeached and sent back to Texas), then I have no reason to believe it is true, or accept the truth of your statements in any way.
#197 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Do you have a source for your accusations, or am I supposed to just take your word for it?
User avatar #198 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They're fairly well documented. You can simply Google "Bush Administration free speech zones" and start reading. Granted, other parties have used them as well, but I didn't really like Bush's policies, so I'll use him as an example because fuck him.
#194 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet again, you draw the focus away from the crux of the argument.

The First Amendment zones were used to diffuse a situation that otherwise would have ended in violence. Is this that hard to comprehend? Instead of going in guns blazing and arresting people, with federal agents and violent protestors both ending up killed/wounded/ect, they created a situation in which people who had given up their right to "peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances" could do so in a controlled manner (thus keeping it peaceful). If you can find a situation in which people assemble in a peaceful manner to petition the government for redress of grievances and are forced to do so in First Amendment zones then I will concede the point.

How ever, that has not happened.
User avatar #196 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They were used pretty heavily by the Bush administration during public addresses after the 9/11 attacks and around the 2004 elections, usually preemptively, before any violent intent could be established. Has not happened?
#177 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
I have multiple times. You simple refuse to use basic logic and comprehension of the English language in order to understand what I am saying. Sorry if making the same point over and over gets frustrating. Let me try to make this clear for you.

When did I state that the First Amendment only governs assemblies of any kind? No, the point I have made (several times over) was that these people, due to their behavior, had forfeited their right to assemble and petition the government, because that right only exists if the assembly and manner of petition is peaceful in nature. This is stated quite clearly in the amendment itself. The point I have made several times, that you refuse or are incapable of comprehending due to a general lack of intelligence, is that instead of doing what was perfectly legal under the First Amendment, as well as applicable laws; arresting these people and putting them all away for serious federal prison time, they instead created a controlled situation where these people could assemble and protest in a decidedly aggressive, and anything other than peaceful manner, yet maintain control over the situation and keep it from escalating into open violence.

Had these people not been waving around weapons, making threats, ect, then yes, having "First Amendment" zones would be in violation of the First Amendment as long as no one was protesting the other side of the issue in that area at that time However, the First Amendment makes provision for the government to control a situation as to make sure that people are allowed to protest and assemble, yet maintain the peace at the same time, such as my example of keeping people protesting opposing sides of an issue separate from each other.

This is an EXTREMELY simple point, one that is quite clear if you actually take the time to read and understand the language the First Amendment was written in. You have obviously not done this, which is why I have called you out on your blatant stupidity.
User avatar #179 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet even though you claim the First supports your claim that it does allow for designated protest zones, those blatantly abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble, in the exact wording of the Amendment. The wording is quite black and white, no matter how old it may be. It doesn't matter if there is an opposing viewpoint present, nobody should tell anybody who can assemble where, and trust the individual protesters to follow the laws prohibiting wanton violence and destruction.
#182 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
The zones were set up after the assembly had become violent in nature, thus, they had given up their right to assemble peacefully, thus, they had no right to assemble at all, thus, the zones were actually giving them a right they had given up.

How hard is this to understand? The language of the First Amendment is clear on this subject and completely supports what was done in this situation.
User avatar #183 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've stated numerous times that I don't give a fuck about those particular protesters, so please stop making this about them. If they really are being so menacing and blatantly threatening, they shouldn't even be around to protest in the designated zones, and the violent ones should have been detained, as you seem to agree with. So why should that force the (probably few) peaceful ones remaining into protest corrals?
#185 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Seriously? How many times have I made my point blatantly clear? I have autistic cousins that would have understood what I was saying a couple hours ago.
Lets take this from the top.
This situation is the only one in which First Amendment zones have been set up. Your comment was about First Amendment zones being a violation of the First Amendment. The language of the First Amendment itself disproves that notion, due to it only protecting the rights of a group to assemble peacefully. As the group in question was not behaving in a peaceful manner, the group as a group had given up their right to assemble in the first place. Thus, setting up the first amendment zones was not encroaching on their right to assemble peacefully as a group, but giving that right to a group that had already given up that right.
Some of them, might have been peaceful, but how do you sort them out? "Hey you, you have a gun and are waving a sign just like the rest of the jackasses, but I don't hear you screaming about killing anyone, so go ahead and protest where ever you want"?
No, that makes no sense at all. In a situation you can only deal the the group as a group, as that is the only way to maintain control of a situation in which threats have been leveled against federal tax agents and law enforcement agents alike, not only for the safety of the federal agents, but the protesters themselves.
In a situation in which two differing groups are protesting opposite sides of an issue, the same thing applies. As the First Amendment only allows for peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, it is entirely legal to use regulations, keeping groups separate, ect, in order to keep any and all assemblies and demonstrations peaceful. Any first year law student will tell you exactly what I have.
User avatar #188 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
It merely states the "people", which in typically refers to the general population. "We, the people" and all the like. The First says nothing about groups. Laws are evaluated on an individual basis. Even when there are multiple people accused, they stand trial representing themselves.

How do you sort them out? I don't know, how about you detain the ones who are actively threatening people first? The ones who are actively breaking laws? I mean, it's a little harder than writing off rights, but it's better to actually do something about a problem instead of sweeping it under a rug, don't you think?
#202 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
So, instead the feds should have gone in guns shooting and got people killed.

Or, they could have done what they did and not violated any rights (as you have claimed they did) and not gotten anyone killed.

Hmm.... which is better, idiots spouting hate and everyone going home safe, or a bunch of body bags? Gee.... that is such a hard question

The italics imply sarcasm. Just wanted you to know sense you seem to have problems comprehending basic English. So what I was really saying is that instead of getting people killed, the smart choice is what was done; put them in a corner where they can yell and scream and the feds can keep everything under control and safe and everyone goes home after its all said and done.
User avatar #204 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I have conceded that it was a sound tactic in this situation, but I still disagree with the practice in general. However, as I don't really know all the facts and nuances surrounding the issue at hand, I can't provide a suitable alternative course of action at the moment. You don't need to keep going on about it.
#199 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Lets try this again.

The group in question was acting violently. They were using their personal free speech to utter threats (which is against the law).

Thus, instead of inciting violent acts against federal officers by arresting them, they diffused the situation with "First Amendment Zones". This in no way contradicted the First Amendment, as according to the First Amendment and judgements passed by various Supreme Courts as to how the First Amendment is applied, the people as a group, due to actions of the group had given up these rights.

Do I need to use smaller words so you can understand this simple concept?
User avatar #200 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
But a group is composed of individuals. The individuals were acting belligerent, so bag them and then see what the group becomes.

While in this instance it may have been a sound tactic, it does nothing to address the situation at hand, and I still disapprove of the practice on principal.
#192 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Only, as I have stated multiple times, no rights were "written off", instead of arresting people already threatening to use force against federal agents in the course of said agents performing lawful duties, which would have only ended in violence as said individuals were armed, the authorities chose to create a situation in which the violence was defused, instead of (metaphorically) throwing matches on a pile of wood soaked in napalm.

And, can one person "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances"? No, "assemble" implies a group, thus if a group assembles to petition, and does so in a violent manner, then said group loses its right to assemble. This is exceedingly simple logic, yet you refuse to comprehend it.
User avatar #195 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You're right, assemble does imply more than one. However, the rights of the individuals in that assembly still apply. Individuals represent themselves in court, even if they were part of a group.

And you do have a point about diffusing tension, but what does that do about the laws that were actually broken? Somebody's got to be held accountable for the threats made against federal officers eventually.
#162 - Yeah, that's still pretty rights-denying-y, *especially* if yo…  [+] (34 new replies) 04/29/2014 on yep -1
#168 - tomthehippie (04/29/2014) [-]
So, in other words, instead of setting things up so you can safely express whatever you want to, which includes keeping protesters on opposite sides of various issues separate to lower the chance of protests turning into riots, we should just say fuck it and let everyone do whatever, because trying to make sure that protests are peaceful (which is the right guarantied by the 1st amendment, PEACEFUL protest) is tyranny.

Nice logic there! Let me guess, you think the moon is made of cheese, don't you?

See what knowing your history (which includes the actual facts of the laws that state and protect our rights) does when you try to argue a point? Here's a hint, it helps you not look fucking retarded.
User avatar #171 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I say let them riot. The rule of the strong is the most stable, which is why the weak are crushed in establishing who is right through might. It doesn't matter if the moon is factually made of cheese or not, so long as my army of rednecks with their baby-murder death rifles can scare off your hippy pansy-parade standing in their nice govt-issued protest box organized in a nice 10-pin pattern. Might makes right, and thus the barbarian reigns.

Raving aside, you should be able to express what you want, where you want. Of course complications are going to arise. People are allowed to have dissenting opinions, and where people disagree, conflict happens, but you shouldn't handle people with baby mitts just because somebody might get hurt. Would the Civil Rights Movements and Martin Luther King Jr. have had the same impact if the government said "Go ahead, protest, just over there, off to the side a bit... Farther... Farther... Good"? Do they keep protesters and people around them safe, or do they keep protesters out of the way, where they're not likely to draw attention to themselves? Nobody is completely free from bias, especially in government, and the people who designate an area for protest are bound to have an opinion on the topic one way or another.
#172 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Ah, so in other words if people die because, instead of separating two opposing groups of demonstrators, we let them all get in each other's faces, then its all good?

Also, note the fact that you only have the right (under the first amendment) to protest peacefully? So, in fact, as these men in this situation were spewing threats, waving guns around, ect, they actually had no right to protest; as it was not a peaceful protest. Instead of doing what was perfectly legal (arresting them all for disturbing the peace, inciting a riot, making threats against federal agents, and other offenses, all felonies which, with or without conspiracy charges that could easily be applied in this situation, could have ended up with all of them spending upwards of five years, and as much as ten or more, in federal prison with no chance of early release for good behavior, plus an additional five years parole after their release with almost any prosecutor being able to argue for zero tolerance parole, meaning that if they violate parole they have to do the rest of their parole in prison, then get back out on parole again), they were nice enough to create a situation where these idiots could vent their frustrations and protest, while still maintaining order.

So, in the end, as the Constitution of the United States of America, and the amendments there of apply, as well as all applicable laws, the authorities could have treated these people MUCH more harshly than they did, and instead went out of their way to allow these people access to a right they had forfeited by the manner in which they attempted to use said right, as well as numerous crimes they committed, as well as continue to commit.

Do you know that these "militia" have taken over a town nearby, demanding to see papers proving residence from anyone entering said town, to the point that the mayor of that town has sent a letter to the county sheriff, the state police, and the FBI, begging them to come save his town?
User avatar #174 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I personally believe in personal accountability. If you commit a crime, you've got to face the consequences. Likewise, you have to account for the risk in a given action and decide whether or not it's safe to proceed in the current situation.

Worded as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't just govern protest, as you seem to imply. Now, as for the protesters themselves in the issue on hand, I think they're being jackasses. However, I'm not going to let them spoil the right for anyone else to protest freely on their own terms, where they'd like, when they'd like, and how they'd like. Let them suffer the social and legal ramifications of "spewing threats, waving guns around, etc." and taking "over a town nearby, demanding to see papers", etc.

I will reiterate, however, that the crimes of the few shouldn't justify eroding the freedoms of the many. We haven't banned cars and/or alcohol because some people drive intoxicated by the wheel and kill people when they get into accidents. Likewise, you don't let some racist, militant hicks cow your governing body into requiring a mandate to peacefully protest on your own terms. We already have laws for riots and threats and general buffoon-ish behavior.
#175 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

How stupid are you? It says right there that any assembly (which includes protests to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), must be peaceful, otherwise it is not protected by the First Amendment. This was not, there were threats uttered and weapons waved around.

Thus, they did NOT have the right to assemble, because the right is limited to assemble in a peaceful manner. Therefore, they committed numerous crimes, and as you believe in personal accountability, you therefore agree with me that they should have been arrested

Therefore, you have, by citing the First Amendment, proven my point. Thank you for playing, try learning how to actually know what the fuck you are talking about. It helps you look like you are smarter than the kid in elementary school who had to wear a helmet 24/7, because he didn't understand that smashing his head into things hurt.
User avatar #176 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You seem to have misunderstood me, because I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly.

However, you seem to be missing my point entirely. Yes, I agree that these people are behaving in an illegal manner, and should be arrested and face the repercussions of their actions, but that has nothing to do with the core of my statement, in that I was pointing out that "First Amendment Zones" are unconstitutional in that they allow the rarely unbiased governing body to direct and effectively hide the protesters from the media and other possible audiences. So, how about instead of getting angry, calling me retarded, and creating straw men, you address that point?
#178 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
To prove my point, once more, lets look at the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", this part we aren't going to touch as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" right here, this has already (through the Supreme Court) been changed, the press can be brought to task if they spread lies, and if you use your speech to incite violence then you are not free to use it and will do jail or prison time as is applicable to the nature of the incident.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" now here is what we are looking at, the portion of this amendment that applies to the situation at hand. Lets take a closer look.

"or the right of people peaceably to assemble" right there says it; if an assembly of people is not peaceful in nature, it is not covered or protected by this amendment. Period, end of story.

"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" this is subject to the prior part. In this situation the people in question were petitioning the government over the issue of confiscating property equal in value to fees owed to the federal government. As they were not peaceful in this petition, they have no right to assemble to present the petition, and thus are not protected in their right (in this situation) to petition the government with their grievances over the issue at hand.

Thus, by the clear language of the First Amendment, there was nothing illegal about the zones set up, and the authorities could have arrested all those involved.
User avatar #180 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
My point doesn't address these people. You're creating a straw man.
#181 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Regardless of how what side is portrayed by whatever source you get your information from, the very idea of "First Amendment Zones" is outrageous. Those rights are supposed to be inalienable, not "applicable where convenient". "Widely used" or otherwise, they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't tolerate that kind of erosion of your civil liberties."

Actually, my point is that the authorities that set up the "First Amendment Zones" were going out of their way to give rights presented in the First Amendment to people who, by their actions and according to the very clear language of the First Amendment itself, had given up those rights. Thus, I have disproved (many times over) that there was nothing wrong in setting up these zones.

And "Those rights are supposed to be inalienable"? Then why does the First Amendment itself create situations by which one can forfeit the rights listed in the Amendment? Also, several Supreme Courts have made judgments that limit free speech. For instance, if you preach that we should hang niggers, and someone at your rally hangs a black person, you have criminal culpability for that act, as it can be proven that in using your right to free speech in an irresponsible manner have a criminal responsibility for the death caused by the person who hanged that black person.

This is the law of the land. Period, end of discussion. You can say whatever you want, however you want to, but you are wrong. The amendment was written with built in limits on the right it protects, and has been judged that further limits are completely just.

Now, what was that about strawman arguments? Considering how many you've made, I don't think you have any room to talk about that subject.
User avatar #184 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
The First protects your right to have ideas and preach them. You are, however, still responsible for the things you say. A threat is still a threat, a lynching is still a lynching. The First doesn't make crimes involving the spread of ideas legal, it merely protects the ability of the population to have individual thoughts and share them publicly. Whatever comes from those ideas lies beyond the wording of the Amendment. As such, I think you chose a bad example for your claim regarding Supreme Court rulings.

As for my own straw man arguments, where have I attacked a position I claim you've taken?
#187 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly"

When did I say this? No, I merely stated that this group had given up their right to peacefully assemble to petition the government, because in petitioning the government, this assembly of people had acted violent and threatened federal agents. This makes any rights of assembly under the first amendment null and void, because in the clear language of the first amendment any non peaceful assembly has no right to petition the government or protest. It is only a peaceful assembly that has these rights. The language of the first amendment makes this blatantly clear.

"you address that point (first amendment zones violating right of assembly)" I have done this many, many, many times, in many, many, many differing ways. If you are too idiotic to comprehend the logic behind my arguments and the facts upon which I build said logic, then that is not my problem.

"Would the Civil Rights Movements and Martin Luther King Jr. have had the same impact if the government said "Go ahead, protest, just over there, off to the side a bit... Farther... Farther... Good"? Do they keep protesters and people around them safe, or do they keep protesters out of the way, where they're not likely to draw attention to themselves? Nobody is completely free from bias, especially in government, and the people who designate an area for protest are bound to have an opinion on the topic one way or another. " this is a complete twisting of my logic, because the people in question were assembling and petitioning the government in a peaceful manner, it was those opposing them acting in an violent manner, who (in this day and age) would have been separated from the peaceful opposing protest.

Strawman tactics anyone? I literally went up the list of your comments. There are multiple attempts of yours to put words in my mouth or paint me as opposing perfectly lawful assemblies petitioning the government.
User avatar #191 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
"SEEMED TO IMPLY", stating that your wording was murky, causing confusion. Go ahead, call me retarded for not seeing the crystal clear logic behind your impeccably worded arguments and foolproof statements.

I was using the Civil Rights Movement example to illustrate my point that "First Amendment Zones" are detrimental to the sharing of ideas and the potential for societal good that arises from that kind of freedom, and that the government shouldn't have the right to dictate when and where the public exchange of information and ideas should take place. I'm sorry if you seemed to think that I wanted you to look like you hated black people and wanted to re-instate slavery, but that was not my intention.
#207 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And you have only recently stated this. Up until now you have been saying this about a situation in which your opinion was clearly in the wrong, it is only now that it has been quite obviously proved as bullshit (several dozen times over), that you moderate your stance.

More strawman tactics. Wonderful. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a young child? It would explain a lot.
User avatar #208 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
Technically that's "No true Scotsman", but I'm glad I taught you a new word.

However, my original post simply stated that the very idea of "Free Speech Zones" is outrageous, but I will admit that my thinking did get a little muddled as I was drawn in to your stance on the Bundy protest issue. You can scroll up to verify.

And why yes, I did notice that you were red-thumbing all my posts. Note that I haven't been doing the same, because while I may dislike your stance, I don't feel the need to express it in such a petty manner.
#205 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Wow, was it that hard to stop using strawman tactics and provide a source?

Ok, so in those specific situations the First Amendment zones were a violation of First Amendment rights, however your argument was that in ANY situation said zones are a violation of said rights. My argument this entire time has been that in this situation, it was not a violation of rights, but instead simultaneously granting rights to people who had given up said rights, and an effort to maintain control over a dangerous situation.

This is a simple point that I have made with basic facts and sound logic, yet you insist on comparing an apple to an orange, yet another strawman tactic. You have basically said "sense a man raped a woman, then all men are rapists!". I am not putting those words in your mouth, but that is the logic you have used. Nice strawman tactic.

This entire time I have been proving how, in this situation, there was no violation of rights, because those involved had given up the rights that were "violated", due to their behavior.

I hope you can finally comprehend this exceedingly simple point.
User avatar #206 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've conceded that this situation may be the exception to my "rule", but I would still go as far as to claim that the vast majority of cases where such zones are set up they are primarily intended to control dialog and keep protesters away from the public and media, which was my core message the whole time. Do you want me to search up every instance in which a "Free Speech Zone" has been established and draw further conclusions, or do you want to do some of the leg-work yourself?
#201 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Strawman tactic. "Oh, the evidence is there, but just because I'm using it to support my argument doesn't mean I have to provide the evidence."

Yeah, if you can't provide evidence that what you are saying is true (which I doubt, as it would have been all over the news and I didn't see anything about that, not that doubt he wouldn't have tried, but the ACLU would have taken his ass in front of the Supreme Court so fast his head would have still been spinning by the time he was impeached and sent back to Texas), then I have no reason to believe it is true, or accept the truth of your statements in any way.
#197 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Do you have a source for your accusations, or am I supposed to just take your word for it?
User avatar #198 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They're fairly well documented. You can simply Google "Bush Administration free speech zones" and start reading. Granted, other parties have used them as well, but I didn't really like Bush's policies, so I'll use him as an example because fuck him.
#194 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet again, you draw the focus away from the crux of the argument.

The First Amendment zones were used to diffuse a situation that otherwise would have ended in violence. Is this that hard to comprehend? Instead of going in guns blazing and arresting people, with federal agents and violent protestors both ending up killed/wounded/ect, they created a situation in which people who had given up their right to "peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances" could do so in a controlled manner (thus keeping it peaceful). If you can find a situation in which people assemble in a peaceful manner to petition the government for redress of grievances and are forced to do so in First Amendment zones then I will concede the point.

How ever, that has not happened.
User avatar #196 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They were used pretty heavily by the Bush administration during public addresses after the 9/11 attacks and around the 2004 elections, usually preemptively, before any violent intent could be established. Has not happened?
#177 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
I have multiple times. You simple refuse to use basic logic and comprehension of the English language in order to understand what I am saying. Sorry if making the same point over and over gets frustrating. Let me try to make this clear for you.

When did I state that the First Amendment only governs assemblies of any kind? No, the point I have made (several times over) was that these people, due to their behavior, had forfeited their right to assemble and petition the government, because that right only exists if the assembly and manner of petition is peaceful in nature. This is stated quite clearly in the amendment itself. The point I have made several times, that you refuse or are incapable of comprehending due to a general lack of intelligence, is that instead of doing what was perfectly legal under the First Amendment, as well as applicable laws; arresting these people and putting them all away for serious federal prison time, they instead created a controlled situation where these people could assemble and protest in a decidedly aggressive, and anything other than peaceful manner, yet maintain control over the situation and keep it from escalating into open violence.

Had these people not been waving around weapons, making threats, ect, then yes, having "First Amendment" zones would be in violation of the First Amendment as long as no one was protesting the other side of the issue in that area at that time However, the First Amendment makes provision for the government to control a situation as to make sure that people are allowed to protest and assemble, yet maintain the peace at the same time, such as my example of keeping people protesting opposing sides of an issue separate from each other.

This is an EXTREMELY simple point, one that is quite clear if you actually take the time to read and understand the language the First Amendment was written in. You have obviously not done this, which is why I have called you out on your blatant stupidity.
User avatar #179 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet even though you claim the First supports your claim that it does allow for designated protest zones, those blatantly abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble, in the exact wording of the Amendment. The wording is quite black and white, no matter how old it may be. It doesn't matter if there is an opposing viewpoint present, nobody should tell anybody who can assemble where, and trust the individual protesters to follow the laws prohibiting wanton violence and destruction.
#182 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
The zones were set up after the assembly had become violent in nature, thus, they had given up their right to assemble peacefully, thus, they had no right to assemble at all, thus, the zones were actually giving them a right they had given up.

How hard is this to understand? The language of the First Amendment is clear on this subject and completely supports what was done in this situation.
User avatar #183 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've stated numerous times that I don't give a fuck about those particular protesters, so please stop making this about them. If they really are being so menacing and blatantly threatening, they shouldn't even be around to protest in the designated zones, and the violent ones should have been detained, as you seem to agree with. So why should that force the (probably few) peaceful ones remaining into protest corrals?
#185 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Seriously? How many times have I made my point blatantly clear? I have autistic cousins that would have understood what I was saying a couple hours ago.
Lets take this from the top.
This situation is the only one in which First Amendment zones have been set up. Your comment was about First Amendment zones being a violation of the First Amendment. The language of the First Amendment itself disproves that notion, due to it only protecting the rights of a group to assemble peacefully. As the group in question was not behaving in a peaceful manner, the group as a group had given up their right to assemble in the first place. Thus, setting up the first amendment zones was not encroaching on their right to assemble peacefully as a group, but giving that right to a group that had already given up that right.
Some of them, might have been peaceful, but how do you sort them out? "Hey you, you have a gun and are waving a sign just like the rest of the jackasses, but I don't hear you screaming about killing anyone, so go ahead and protest where ever you want"?
No, that makes no sense at all. In a situation you can only deal the the group as a group, as that is the only way to maintain control of a situation in which threats have been leveled against federal tax agents and law enforcement agents alike, not only for the safety of the federal agents, but the protesters themselves.
In a situation in which two differing groups are protesting opposite sides of an issue, the same thing applies. As the First Amendment only allows for peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, it is entirely legal to use regulations, keeping groups separate, ect, in order to keep any and all assemblies and demonstrations peaceful. Any first year law student will tell you exactly what I have.
User avatar #188 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
It merely states the "people", which in typically refers to the general population. "We, the people" and all the like. The First says nothing about groups. Laws are evaluated on an individual basis. Even when there are multiple people accused, they stand trial representing themselves.

How do you sort them out? I don't know, how about you detain the ones who are actively threatening people first? The ones who are actively breaking laws? I mean, it's a little harder than writing off rights, but it's better to actually do something about a problem instead of sweeping it under a rug, don't you think?
#202 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
So, instead the feds should have gone in guns shooting and got people killed.

Or, they could have done what they did and not violated any rights (as you have claimed they did) and not gotten anyone killed.

Hmm.... which is better, idiots spouting hate and everyone going home safe, or a bunch of body bags? Gee.... that is such a hard question

The italics imply sarcasm. Just wanted you to know sense you seem to have problems comprehending basic English. So what I was really saying is that instead of getting people killed, the smart choice is what was done; put them in a corner where they can yell and scream and the feds can keep everything under control and safe and everyone goes home after its all said and done.
User avatar #204 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I have conceded that it was a sound tactic in this situation, but I still disagree with the practice in general. However, as I don't really know all the facts and nuances surrounding the issue at hand, I can't provide a suitable alternative course of action at the moment. You don't need to keep going on about it.
#199 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Lets try this again.

The group in question was acting violently. They were using their personal free speech to utter threats (which is against the law).

Thus, instead of inciting violent acts against federal officers by arresting them, they diffused the situation with "First Amendment Zones". This in no way contradicted the First Amendment, as according to the First Amendment and judgements passed by various Supreme Courts as to how the First Amendment is applied, the people as a group, due to actions of the group had given up these rights.

Do I need to use smaller words so you can understand this simple concept?
User avatar #200 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
But a group is composed of individuals. The individuals were acting belligerent, so bag them and then see what the group becomes.

While in this instance it may have been a sound tactic, it does nothing to address the situation at hand, and I still disapprove of the practice on principal.
#192 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Only, as I have stated multiple times, no rights were "written off", instead of arresting people already threatening to use force against federal agents in the course of said agents performing lawful duties, which would have only ended in violence as said individuals were armed, the authorities chose to create a situation in which the violence was defused, instead of (metaphorically) throwing matches on a pile of wood soaked in napalm.

And, can one person "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances"? No, "assemble" implies a group, thus if a group assembles to petition, and does so in a violent manner, then said group loses its right to assemble. This is exceedingly simple logic, yet you refuse to comprehend it.
User avatar #195 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You're right, assemble does imply more than one. However, the rights of the individuals in that assembly still apply. Individuals represent themselves in court, even if they were part of a group.

And you do have a point about diffusing tension, but what does that do about the laws that were actually broken? Somebody's got to be held accountable for the threats made against federal officers eventually.
#86 - Regardless of how what side is portrayed by whatever source yo…  [+] (36 new replies) 04/29/2014 on yep 0
#160 - tomthehippie (04/29/2014) [-]
So, setting up a place for safe protests, just like you have to register to hold a protest in a city, that is somehow denying rights? Despite the fact that it has been this way for over thirty years?

Try knowing your history buddy.
User avatar #162 - Zarke (04/29/2014) [-]
Yeah, that's still pretty rights-denying-y, *especially* if you have to register to protest, no matter how long it's been going on for. How about instead of me learning some history, you learn your rights and question the institutions in place that erode them instead of being complacent and thinking "hm, that's the way things have been, so that's the way they should be."
#168 - tomthehippie (04/29/2014) [-]
So, in other words, instead of setting things up so you can safely express whatever you want to, which includes keeping protesters on opposite sides of various issues separate to lower the chance of protests turning into riots, we should just say fuck it and let everyone do whatever, because trying to make sure that protests are peaceful (which is the right guarantied by the 1st amendment, PEACEFUL protest) is tyranny.

Nice logic there! Let me guess, you think the moon is made of cheese, don't you?

See what knowing your history (which includes the actual facts of the laws that state and protect our rights) does when you try to argue a point? Here's a hint, it helps you not look fucking retarded.
User avatar #171 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I say let them riot. The rule of the strong is the most stable, which is why the weak are crushed in establishing who is right through might. It doesn't matter if the moon is factually made of cheese or not, so long as my army of rednecks with their baby-murder death rifles can scare off your hippy pansy-parade standing in their nice govt-issued protest box organized in a nice 10-pin pattern. Might makes right, and thus the barbarian reigns.

Raving aside, you should be able to express what you want, where you want. Of course complications are going to arise. People are allowed to have dissenting opinions, and where people disagree, conflict happens, but you shouldn't handle people with baby mitts just because somebody might get hurt. Would the Civil Rights Movements and Martin Luther King Jr. have had the same impact if the government said "Go ahead, protest, just over there, off to the side a bit... Farther... Farther... Good"? Do they keep protesters and people around them safe, or do they keep protesters out of the way, where they're not likely to draw attention to themselves? Nobody is completely free from bias, especially in government, and the people who designate an area for protest are bound to have an opinion on the topic one way or another.
#172 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Ah, so in other words if people die because, instead of separating two opposing groups of demonstrators, we let them all get in each other's faces, then its all good?

Also, note the fact that you only have the right (under the first amendment) to protest peacefully? So, in fact, as these men in this situation were spewing threats, waving guns around, ect, they actually had no right to protest; as it was not a peaceful protest. Instead of doing what was perfectly legal (arresting them all for disturbing the peace, inciting a riot, making threats against federal agents, and other offenses, all felonies which, with or without conspiracy charges that could easily be applied in this situation, could have ended up with all of them spending upwards of five years, and as much as ten or more, in federal prison with no chance of early release for good behavior, plus an additional five years parole after their release with almost any prosecutor being able to argue for zero tolerance parole, meaning that if they violate parole they have to do the rest of their parole in prison, then get back out on parole again), they were nice enough to create a situation where these idiots could vent their frustrations and protest, while still maintaining order.

So, in the end, as the Constitution of the United States of America, and the amendments there of apply, as well as all applicable laws, the authorities could have treated these people MUCH more harshly than they did, and instead went out of their way to allow these people access to a right they had forfeited by the manner in which they attempted to use said right, as well as numerous crimes they committed, as well as continue to commit.

Do you know that these "militia" have taken over a town nearby, demanding to see papers proving residence from anyone entering said town, to the point that the mayor of that town has sent a letter to the county sheriff, the state police, and the FBI, begging them to come save his town?
User avatar #174 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I personally believe in personal accountability. If you commit a crime, you've got to face the consequences. Likewise, you have to account for the risk in a given action and decide whether or not it's safe to proceed in the current situation.

Worded as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't just govern protest, as you seem to imply. Now, as for the protesters themselves in the issue on hand, I think they're being jackasses. However, I'm not going to let them spoil the right for anyone else to protest freely on their own terms, where they'd like, when they'd like, and how they'd like. Let them suffer the social and legal ramifications of "spewing threats, waving guns around, etc." and taking "over a town nearby, demanding to see papers", etc.

I will reiterate, however, that the crimes of the few shouldn't justify eroding the freedoms of the many. We haven't banned cars and/or alcohol because some people drive intoxicated by the wheel and kill people when they get into accidents. Likewise, you don't let some racist, militant hicks cow your governing body into requiring a mandate to peacefully protest on your own terms. We already have laws for riots and threats and general buffoon-ish behavior.
#175 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

How stupid are you? It says right there that any assembly (which includes protests to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), must be peaceful, otherwise it is not protected by the First Amendment. This was not, there were threats uttered and weapons waved around.

Thus, they did NOT have the right to assemble, because the right is limited to assemble in a peaceful manner. Therefore, they committed numerous crimes, and as you believe in personal accountability, you therefore agree with me that they should have been arrested

Therefore, you have, by citing the First Amendment, proven my point. Thank you for playing, try learning how to actually know what the fuck you are talking about. It helps you look like you are smarter than the kid in elementary school who had to wear a helmet 24/7, because he didn't understand that smashing his head into things hurt.
User avatar #176 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You seem to have misunderstood me, because I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly.

However, you seem to be missing my point entirely. Yes, I agree that these people are behaving in an illegal manner, and should be arrested and face the repercussions of their actions, but that has nothing to do with the core of my statement, in that I was pointing out that "First Amendment Zones" are unconstitutional in that they allow the rarely unbiased governing body to direct and effectively hide the protesters from the media and other possible audiences. So, how about instead of getting angry, calling me retarded, and creating straw men, you address that point?
#178 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
To prove my point, once more, lets look at the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", this part we aren't going to touch as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" right here, this has already (through the Supreme Court) been changed, the press can be brought to task if they spread lies, and if you use your speech to incite violence then you are not free to use it and will do jail or prison time as is applicable to the nature of the incident.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" now here is what we are looking at, the portion of this amendment that applies to the situation at hand. Lets take a closer look.

"or the right of people peaceably to assemble" right there says it; if an assembly of people is not peaceful in nature, it is not covered or protected by this amendment. Period, end of story.

"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" this is subject to the prior part. In this situation the people in question were petitioning the government over the issue of confiscating property equal in value to fees owed to the federal government. As they were not peaceful in this petition, they have no right to assemble to present the petition, and thus are not protected in their right (in this situation) to petition the government with their grievances over the issue at hand.

Thus, by the clear language of the First Amendment, there was nothing illegal about the zones set up, and the authorities could have arrested all those involved.
User avatar #180 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
My point doesn't address these people. You're creating a straw man.
#181 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"Regardless of how what side is portrayed by whatever source you get your information from, the very idea of "First Amendment Zones" is outrageous. Those rights are supposed to be inalienable, not "applicable where convenient". "Widely used" or otherwise, they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't tolerate that kind of erosion of your civil liberties."

Actually, my point is that the authorities that set up the "First Amendment Zones" were going out of their way to give rights presented in the First Amendment to people who, by their actions and according to the very clear language of the First Amendment itself, had given up those rights. Thus, I have disproved (many times over) that there was nothing wrong in setting up these zones.

And "Those rights are supposed to be inalienable"? Then why does the First Amendment itself create situations by which one can forfeit the rights listed in the Amendment? Also, several Supreme Courts have made judgments that limit free speech. For instance, if you preach that we should hang niggers, and someone at your rally hangs a black person, you have criminal culpability for that act, as it can be proven that in using your right to free speech in an irresponsible manner have a criminal responsibility for the death caused by the person who hanged that black person.

This is the law of the land. Period, end of discussion. You can say whatever you want, however you want to, but you are wrong. The amendment was written with built in limits on the right it protects, and has been judged that further limits are completely just.

Now, what was that about strawman arguments? Considering how many you've made, I don't think you have any room to talk about that subject.
User avatar #184 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
The First protects your right to have ideas and preach them. You are, however, still responsible for the things you say. A threat is still a threat, a lynching is still a lynching. The First doesn't make crimes involving the spread of ideas legal, it merely protects the ability of the population to have individual thoughts and share them publicly. Whatever comes from those ideas lies beyond the wording of the Amendment. As such, I think you chose a bad example for your claim regarding Supreme Court rulings.

As for my own straw man arguments, where have I attacked a position I claim you've taken?
#187 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
"I was stating that you seemed to imply that the First Amendment only governs peaceful assembly"

When did I say this? No, I merely stated that this group had given up their right to peacefully assemble to petition the government, because in petitioning the government, this assembly of people had acted violent and threatened federal agents. This makes any rights of assembly under the first amendment null and void, because in the clear language of the first amendment any non peaceful assembly has no right to petition the government or protest. It is only a peaceful assembly that has these rights. The language of the first amendment makes this blatantly clear.

"you address that point (first amendment zones violating right of assembly)" I have done this many, many, many times, in many, many, many differing ways. If you are too idiotic to comprehend the logic behind my arguments and the facts upon which I build said logic, then that is not my problem.

"Would the Civil Rights Movements and Martin Luther King Jr. have had the same impact if the government said "Go ahead, protest, just over there, off to the side a bit... Farther... Farther... Good"? Do they keep protesters and people around them safe, or do they keep protesters out of the way, where they're not likely to draw attention to themselves? Nobody is completely free from bias, especially in government, and the people who designate an area for protest are bound to have an opinion on the topic one way or another. " this is a complete twisting of my logic, because the people in question were assembling and petitioning the government in a peaceful manner, it was those opposing them acting in an violent manner, who (in this day and age) would have been separated from the peaceful opposing protest.

Strawman tactics anyone? I literally went up the list of your comments. There are multiple attempts of yours to put words in my mouth or paint me as opposing perfectly lawful assemblies petitioning the government.
User avatar #191 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
"SEEMED TO IMPLY", stating that your wording was murky, causing confusion. Go ahead, call me retarded for not seeing the crystal clear logic behind your impeccably worded arguments and foolproof statements.

I was using the Civil Rights Movement example to illustrate my point that "First Amendment Zones" are detrimental to the sharing of ideas and the potential for societal good that arises from that kind of freedom, and that the government shouldn't have the right to dictate when and where the public exchange of information and ideas should take place. I'm sorry if you seemed to think that I wanted you to look like you hated black people and wanted to re-instate slavery, but that was not my intention.
#207 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And you have only recently stated this. Up until now you have been saying this about a situation in which your opinion was clearly in the wrong, it is only now that it has been quite obviously proved as bullshit (several dozen times over), that you moderate your stance.

More strawman tactics. Wonderful. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a young child? It would explain a lot.
User avatar #208 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
Technically that's "No true Scotsman", but I'm glad I taught you a new word.

However, my original post simply stated that the very idea of "Free Speech Zones" is outrageous, but I will admit that my thinking did get a little muddled as I was drawn in to your stance on the Bundy protest issue. You can scroll up to verify.

And why yes, I did notice that you were red-thumbing all my posts. Note that I haven't been doing the same, because while I may dislike your stance, I don't feel the need to express it in such a petty manner.
#205 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Wow, was it that hard to stop using strawman tactics and provide a source?

Ok, so in those specific situations the First Amendment zones were a violation of First Amendment rights, however your argument was that in ANY situation said zones are a violation of said rights. My argument this entire time has been that in this situation, it was not a violation of rights, but instead simultaneously granting rights to people who had given up said rights, and an effort to maintain control over a dangerous situation.

This is a simple point that I have made with basic facts and sound logic, yet you insist on comparing an apple to an orange, yet another strawman tactic. You have basically said "sense a man raped a woman, then all men are rapists!". I am not putting those words in your mouth, but that is the logic you have used. Nice strawman tactic.

This entire time I have been proving how, in this situation, there was no violation of rights, because those involved had given up the rights that were "violated", due to their behavior.

I hope you can finally comprehend this exceedingly simple point.
User avatar #206 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've conceded that this situation may be the exception to my "rule", but I would still go as far as to claim that the vast majority of cases where such zones are set up they are primarily intended to control dialog and keep protesters away from the public and media, which was my core message the whole time. Do you want me to search up every instance in which a "Free Speech Zone" has been established and draw further conclusions, or do you want to do some of the leg-work yourself?
#201 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Strawman tactic. "Oh, the evidence is there, but just because I'm using it to support my argument doesn't mean I have to provide the evidence."

Yeah, if you can't provide evidence that what you are saying is true (which I doubt, as it would have been all over the news and I didn't see anything about that, not that doubt he wouldn't have tried, but the ACLU would have taken his ass in front of the Supreme Court so fast his head would have still been spinning by the time he was impeached and sent back to Texas), then I have no reason to believe it is true, or accept the truth of your statements in any way.
#197 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Do you have a source for your accusations, or am I supposed to just take your word for it?
User avatar #198 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They're fairly well documented. You can simply Google "Bush Administration free speech zones" and start reading. Granted, other parties have used them as well, but I didn't really like Bush's policies, so I'll use him as an example because fuck him.
#194 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet again, you draw the focus away from the crux of the argument.

The First Amendment zones were used to diffuse a situation that otherwise would have ended in violence. Is this that hard to comprehend? Instead of going in guns blazing and arresting people, with federal agents and violent protestors both ending up killed/wounded/ect, they created a situation in which people who had given up their right to "peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances" could do so in a controlled manner (thus keeping it peaceful). If you can find a situation in which people assemble in a peaceful manner to petition the government for redress of grievances and are forced to do so in First Amendment zones then I will concede the point.

How ever, that has not happened.
User avatar #196 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
They were used pretty heavily by the Bush administration during public addresses after the 9/11 attacks and around the 2004 elections, usually preemptively, before any violent intent could be established. Has not happened?
#177 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
I have multiple times. You simple refuse to use basic logic and comprehension of the English language in order to understand what I am saying. Sorry if making the same point over and over gets frustrating. Let me try to make this clear for you.

When did I state that the First Amendment only governs assemblies of any kind? No, the point I have made (several times over) was that these people, due to their behavior, had forfeited their right to assemble and petition the government, because that right only exists if the assembly and manner of petition is peaceful in nature. This is stated quite clearly in the amendment itself. The point I have made several times, that you refuse or are incapable of comprehending due to a general lack of intelligence, is that instead of doing what was perfectly legal under the First Amendment, as well as applicable laws; arresting these people and putting them all away for serious federal prison time, they instead created a controlled situation where these people could assemble and protest in a decidedly aggressive, and anything other than peaceful manner, yet maintain control over the situation and keep it from escalating into open violence.

Had these people not been waving around weapons, making threats, ect, then yes, having "First Amendment" zones would be in violation of the First Amendment as long as no one was protesting the other side of the issue in that area at that time However, the First Amendment makes provision for the government to control a situation as to make sure that people are allowed to protest and assemble, yet maintain the peace at the same time, such as my example of keeping people protesting opposing sides of an issue separate from each other.

This is an EXTREMELY simple point, one that is quite clear if you actually take the time to read and understand the language the First Amendment was written in. You have obviously not done this, which is why I have called you out on your blatant stupidity.
User avatar #179 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
And yet even though you claim the First supports your claim that it does allow for designated protest zones, those blatantly abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble, in the exact wording of the Amendment. The wording is quite black and white, no matter how old it may be. It doesn't matter if there is an opposing viewpoint present, nobody should tell anybody who can assemble where, and trust the individual protesters to follow the laws prohibiting wanton violence and destruction.
#182 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
The zones were set up after the assembly had become violent in nature, thus, they had given up their right to assemble peacefully, thus, they had no right to assemble at all, thus, the zones were actually giving them a right they had given up.

How hard is this to understand? The language of the First Amendment is clear on this subject and completely supports what was done in this situation.
User avatar #183 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I've stated numerous times that I don't give a fuck about those particular protesters, so please stop making this about them. If they really are being so menacing and blatantly threatening, they shouldn't even be around to protest in the designated zones, and the violent ones should have been detained, as you seem to agree with. So why should that force the (probably few) peaceful ones remaining into protest corrals?
#185 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Seriously? How many times have I made my point blatantly clear? I have autistic cousins that would have understood what I was saying a couple hours ago.
Lets take this from the top.
This situation is the only one in which First Amendment zones have been set up. Your comment was about First Amendment zones being a violation of the First Amendment. The language of the First Amendment itself disproves that notion, due to it only protecting the rights of a group to assemble peacefully. As the group in question was not behaving in a peaceful manner, the group as a group had given up their right to assemble in the first place. Thus, setting up the first amendment zones was not encroaching on their right to assemble peacefully as a group, but giving that right to a group that had already given up that right.
Some of them, might have been peaceful, but how do you sort them out? "Hey you, you have a gun and are waving a sign just like the rest of the jackasses, but I don't hear you screaming about killing anyone, so go ahead and protest where ever you want"?
No, that makes no sense at all. In a situation you can only deal the the group as a group, as that is the only way to maintain control of a situation in which threats have been leveled against federal tax agents and law enforcement agents alike, not only for the safety of the federal agents, but the protesters themselves.
In a situation in which two differing groups are protesting opposite sides of an issue, the same thing applies. As the First Amendment only allows for peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, it is entirely legal to use regulations, keeping groups separate, ect, in order to keep any and all assemblies and demonstrations peaceful. Any first year law student will tell you exactly what I have.
User avatar #188 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
It merely states the "people", which in typically refers to the general population. "We, the people" and all the like. The First says nothing about groups. Laws are evaluated on an individual basis. Even when there are multiple people accused, they stand trial representing themselves.

How do you sort them out? I don't know, how about you detain the ones who are actively threatening people first? The ones who are actively breaking laws? I mean, it's a little harder than writing off rights, but it's better to actually do something about a problem instead of sweeping it under a rug, don't you think?
#202 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
So, instead the feds should have gone in guns shooting and got people killed.

Or, they could have done what they did and not violated any rights (as you have claimed they did) and not gotten anyone killed.

Hmm.... which is better, idiots spouting hate and everyone going home safe, or a bunch of body bags? Gee.... that is such a hard question

The italics imply sarcasm. Just wanted you to know sense you seem to have problems comprehending basic English. So what I was really saying is that instead of getting people killed, the smart choice is what was done; put them in a corner where they can yell and scream and the feds can keep everything under control and safe and everyone goes home after its all said and done.
User avatar #204 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
I have conceded that it was a sound tactic in this situation, but I still disagree with the practice in general. However, as I don't really know all the facts and nuances surrounding the issue at hand, I can't provide a suitable alternative course of action at the moment. You don't need to keep going on about it.
#199 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Lets try this again.

The group in question was acting violently. They were using their personal free speech to utter threats (which is against the law).

Thus, instead of inciting violent acts against federal officers by arresting them, they diffused the situation with "First Amendment Zones". This in no way contradicted the First Amendment, as according to the First Amendment and judgements passed by various Supreme Courts as to how the First Amendment is applied, the people as a group, due to actions of the group had given up these rights.

Do I need to use smaller words so you can understand this simple concept?
User avatar #200 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
But a group is composed of individuals. The individuals were acting belligerent, so bag them and then see what the group becomes.

While in this instance it may have been a sound tactic, it does nothing to address the situation at hand, and I still disapprove of the practice on principal.
#192 - tomthehippie (04/30/2014) [-]
Only, as I have stated multiple times, no rights were "written off", instead of arresting people already threatening to use force against federal agents in the course of said agents performing lawful duties, which would have only ended in violence as said individuals were armed, the authorities chose to create a situation in which the violence was defused, instead of (metaphorically) throwing matches on a pile of wood soaked in napalm.

And, can one person "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances"? No, "assemble" implies a group, thus if a group assembles to petition, and does so in a violent manner, then said group loses its right to assemble. This is exceedingly simple logic, yet you refuse to comprehend it.
User avatar #195 - Zarke (04/30/2014) [-]
You're right, assemble does imply more than one. However, the rights of the individuals in that assembly still apply. Individuals represent themselves in court, even if they were part of a group.

And you do have a point about diffusing tension, but what does that do about the laws that were actually broken? Somebody's got to be held accountable for the threats made against federal officers eventually.
#69 - Nah, they're just more vocal. 04/26/2014 on I need masculinism because... +6
#75 - The backhoe and chainsaw ones aren't that stupid. The chainsaw… 04/26/2014 on And the award goes to.. +1
#12 - i hrd u thnk u lift fgt  [+] (1 new reply) 04/23/2014 on The Gains Hide the Pains +3
#16 - aakn has deleted their comment.
#470 - Well, it's charming and happy. It's definitely marketed toward… 04/13/2014 on Thanks 4chan 0
#78 - Caroline Pierce 04/08/2014 on (untitled) +2
#78 - Some LGBTQ boards are probably also dancing in their chairs as well. 04/08/2014 on Git tar 0
#74 - Well, if that guitar was worth anything, surely the owner woul… 04/08/2014 on Git tar 0
#34 - They're not called "girl toys" anymore. Just call th…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/08/2014 on Git tar +38
User avatar #71 - jaggedherp (04/08/2014) [-]
/mlp/ was so happy. I work at a McDonalds, still haven't had to make the distinction or been told to, but I checked /mlp/ a week after the toys launch. First post "We did it guys" with a pic of the policy.
User avatar #78 - Zarke (04/08/2014) [-]
Some LGBTQ boards are probably also dancing in their chairs as well.
#48 - There's like a 90% chance at that happening, and that's being … 04/05/2014 on Sometimes Drunk Me leaves... 0
#267 - It's the band-aid you put over the wound until it heals. It do… 04/01/2014 on 2 minutes of pure feels 0
#256 - Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times by police officers for standin…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/29/2014 on 2 minutes of pure feels 0
User avatar #263 - thegamegestapo (03/29/2014) [-]
The problem is that people view victim blaming as part of the solution. If you put your statement into advice then it becomes "DON'T GO OUTSIDE! It's full of blacks, queers and crime. Oh if only Diane were here!"

It doesn't address the bigger picture.
User avatar #267 - Zarke (04/01/2014) [-]
It's the band-aid you put over the wound until it heals. It doesn't solve the underlying problems in society, but it helps keep things from getting worse. The problem is that both the people who say and are told things like this come at it from the wrong point of view. There's a sliding scale between security and freedom, and the individual does have to be responsible enough to consider the risks of a given decision and decide whether or not to take precautions and accept the risks associated with that decision. As unfortunate as it is, there are unsavory people out there, and until they've all either learned a better way or just fucked off and died, they're a factor that has to be accounted for. Otherwise, people are just lemmings charging off a cliff while a bridge across is under construction.
#33 - I'm no master at the art, but it looks like he's saying "… 03/16/2014 on kill your brother 0
#10 - If you've got a time machine, you can do everything ever simul… 03/13/2014 on if only... 0
#182 - Also the prototyped G11, where the rounds do sit exactly like … 03/09/2014 on /k/ intensifies 0
#180 - To explain the cringe, bullets are usually (you could probably…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/09/2014 on /k/ intensifies 0
User avatar #181 - badmotorfinger (03/09/2014) [-]
all i can think of is the FN P90, in which rounds are loaded horizontally and rotate before feeding downwards into the gun
User avatar #182 - Zarke (03/09/2014) [-]
Also the prototyped G11, where the rounds do sit exactly like they were "loaded" in the .gif above.
#101831 - I've yet to have a guitar with a Floyd Rose... The guitar I me…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/02/2014 on Music - new music, hip hop... 0
User avatar #101833 - darksideofthebeast (03/02/2014) [-]
Man, the floyd rose is a bitch to take care of.
But if you set it up right, it's worth it.

Too bad I can't bend my g string without it going out of tune because the neck and the bridge are fucked and I can't fix them by myself.
#101829 - Ah. Well, 11's might give you more versatility next time if yo…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/01/2014 on Music - new music, hip hop... 0
User avatar #101830 - darksideofthebeast (03/01/2014) [-]
Well, the good thing about the floyd rose is; it gives way to the bridge before the neck.

I need to get the truss rod adjusted anyways.
User avatar #101831 - Zarke (03/02/2014) [-]
I've yet to have a guitar with a Floyd Rose... The guitar I mentioned has a Bigsby vibrato bar. It was *not* fun wrapping those 24-gauge strings around that little roller bar...
User avatar #101833 - darksideofthebeast (03/02/2014) [-]
Man, the floyd rose is a bitch to take care of.
But if you set it up right, it's worth it.

Too bad I can't bend my g string without it going out of tune because the neck and the bridge are fucked and I can't fix them by myself.
#101802 - Who convinced you to try that? And how heavy are we talking, h…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/01/2014 on Music - new music, hip hop... 0
User avatar #101828 - darksideofthebeast (03/01/2014) [-]
12.

I convinced myself because I've been playing in drop c - stan d.
User avatar #101829 - Zarke (03/01/2014) [-]
Ah. Well, 11's might give you more versatility next time if you're only down in C/D. They're still tight in E, but it's not going to snap your neck in half.
User avatar #101830 - darksideofthebeast (03/01/2014) [-]
Well, the good thing about the floyd rose is; it gives way to the bridge before the neck.

I need to get the truss rod adjusted anyways.
User avatar #101831 - Zarke (03/02/2014) [-]
I've yet to have a guitar with a Floyd Rose... The guitar I mentioned has a Bigsby vibrato bar. It was *not* fun wrapping those 24-gauge strings around that little roller bar...
User avatar #101833 - darksideofthebeast (03/02/2014) [-]
Man, the floyd rose is a bitch to take care of.
But if you set it up right, it's worth it.

Too bad I can't bend my g string without it going out of tune because the neck and the bridge are fucked and I can't fix them by myself.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2474 / Total items point value: 5520
[ 21 items Total ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - vanoreo (02/12/2013) [-]
Faggot OP blocked me lol, he is butthurt.

You are correct about the Prohibition. I was thinking about the 19th Amendment.

WHICH DENIED WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE
User avatar #8 to #7 - Zarke (02/12/2013) [-]
I'll disagree with that amendment and point that back to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As far as I can see, something denying women a political voice (part of Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) shouldn't be in there anyways, and I'm glad that society has progressed past that point.
User avatar #9 to #8 - vanoreo (02/12/2013) [-]
k

But daviddavidson is one butthurt ************ .
User avatar #10 to #9 - Zarke (02/12/2013) [-]
I personally think your statements were idiotic. It seems like you've posed much irritation to him in the past. I only let a mosquito land on me so many times before I figure it needs a swat.
User avatar #11 to #10 - vanoreo (02/12/2013) [-]
Meh, some parts of it were genuinely me trying to piss him off (and it worked) and some were actually my opinion.

>Hunting = Good

>AR's = Bad

Whether or not you're a sane human being, that gun can easily go into the wrong hands
User avatar #12 to #11 - Zarke (02/12/2013) [-]
Any gun can go into the wrong hands. Not just "so-called" ARs (which in reality is a scare-term used to describe semi-automatic rifles with scary-looking furniture). Remember that Virginia Tech massacre? Committed with handguns (using 17 10-round magazines at that). Columbine? Shotguns/handguns.

There are millions of these "assault rifles" in the U.S. The vast, vast, VAST majority of which are not used in crime and likely never will be.
User avatar #13 to #12 - vanoreo (02/12/2013) [-]
I for one think we should just get rid of guns all together sometimes...

But that would be incredibly hard, impractical, and guntoting rednecks would get mad.
User avatar #14 to #13 - Zarke (02/12/2013) [-]
Well, that's pretty well impossible and would likely do no good. You'd have to extract everybody from the country, overturn all the soil, search every nook and cranny, and force everybody to walk back in one at a time through metal detectors.

Secondly, not just rednecks. When there's almost a gun for every person in the U.S., you can't generalize such a large number of people as "gun-toting rednecks". People from all walks of life collect, shoot, protect themselves with, hunt with, and compete with firearms. I mean, what about recreational shooters? We aren't harming anybody, and you're arbitrarily robbing us of our hobby because you don't like guns. That goes right against our rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
User avatar #6 - Zarke (06/08/2012) [-]
Wow... People actually go through with this stuff sometimes...
#5 - cowpog ONLINE (06/08/2012) [-]
You're FABULOUS darling!
#4 - seekay (06/08/2012) [-]
<- You
<- You
User avatar #3 - quotetype ONLINE (06/08/2012) [-]
COMMENT VIRGINITY :D. oh and btw your fabulous.
User avatar #2 - walcorn (06/08/2012) [-]
You're fabulous
 Friends (0)