In a lot of cases, yes. It did shut the event down.
It's irrelevant anyways. I'll point you to what I said earlier that you ignored...
That's not free speech. That's preventing free speech.
Free speech would be holding you own event in a civil manner to counter points being made by those with whom you disagree.
As a supposed supporter of free speech I would think you would agree?
and i'll repeat the things you ignored....:
you think only allowing ppl to protest in a civil manner out of sight of what they are protesting and not allowing the press to even take their pictures is free speech?
you think fining someone $500 for holding a sign <note, not yelling or shouting anyone down, just holding a sign and refusing to go to one of these 'free speech zones'> is free speech?
of course i don't think someone should shout the other down and prevent them from speaking...but what you are endorsing is not promoting free speech, it's limiting it...you're few examples <well, your hypothetical examples as you've only provided hearsay> do not warrant, in my mind, this action. i would htink someone like you would be against punishing the collective to punish a small handful of ppl
if you thought i already agreed why did you need the validation?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I think at the very least, it is rude to hold up a sign speaking against the president while the president is giving a speech. At the very worst, the person holding the sign represents a threat to the president's personal safety.
If I were the president (God forbid), I would most certainly have serious problems with people protesting me while I was giving a speech. Maybe some beatings would be in order.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Comments
In a lot of cases, yes. It did shut the event down.
It's irrelevant anyways. I'll point you to what I said earlier that you ignored...
That's not free speech. That's preventing free speech.
Free speech would be holding you own event in a civil manner to counter points being made by those with whom you disagree.
As a supposed supporter of free speech I would think you would agree?
and i'll repeat the things you ignored....:
you think only allowing ppl to protest in a civil manner out of sight of what they are protesting and not allowing the press to even take their pictures is free speech?
you think fining someone $500 for holding a sign <note, not yelling or shouting anyone down, just holding a sign and refusing to go to one of these 'free speech zones'> is free speech?
of course i don't think someone should shout the other down and prevent them from speaking...but what you are endorsing is not promoting free speech, it's limiting it...you're few examples <well, your hypothetical examples as you've only provided hearsay> do not warrant, in my mind, this action. i would htink someone like you would be against punishing the collective to punish a small handful of ppl
if you thought i already agreed why did you need the validation?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
If I were the president (God forbid), I would most certainly have serious problems with people protesting me while I was giving a speech. Maybe some beatings would be in order.
-Enoch Powell