Hateful Protesting, freedom of speech?

I fail to see how this has anything to do with freedom of speech. This is just a measure to protect the privacy of military families. Perhaps prevent an eventual violent outburst from either parties involved. The reason why the ACLU filed it's case in favor of the protesters is to make sure this point is clarified legally.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

I'm all for freedom of speech, within reason, but there are certain limits that need to be in place. I'm glad this law was passed to stop some of the insanity. Now if only we can pass laws banning "hate speech" protests in public (basically any white power type bullshit), I'll be a happy camper.

I don't know how you can be for the freedom of speech if you want the government to limit people's ability to say whatever comes into their mind. Shouldn't you be fighting for expansions of your rights and not the limitations of pre-existing rights?

When limitations are placed upon a right (in this case a fundamental right ) it becomes a privilege. This is why the ACLU will defend these rabid protesters, and it also explains why in the past the ACLU has defended the speech rights of white-power types. To make sure that the intentions of this bill are not the very same limitations you're proposing. They're fighting for expansions of our rights. But scratching the surface of a liberal and finding a authoritarian is pretty common eh?

Who knows, maybe they'll ban any speech; written or verbal that has any sense of an anti-governmental policy tone next. Oops! Too late. It's happened in the past, and they haven't gotten around to enforcing the Patriot Act yet. I think I talked about the legality of seditious libel in another thread awhile back.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

The thing I don't like is the regulation of what time they're allowed to gather. I'm not familiar with laws regarding protests, but is there that sort of limitation on other protests?

Good question. I don't really know. Usually when you have large scale protests you have to file a permit with the city. Which tells you where you can protest and until x time. I think this is a precedant in the manner though. Since it's an out-right ban. So a judicial ruling is required. Still isn't a freedom of speech issue. Now we're into the clarification of other parts of the first amendment.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

I don't see how it's authoritarian to want to ban hate group rallies in public places. I'm not saying we should make all racist speech illegal by itself, I'm just saying we should ban them from rallying in public. It's harmful to society as a whole.

So you just step on their freedom to assembly peacefully instead of freedom of speech? You cannot cede that much authority to the government. Rarely, if ever is it ever returned. Once it's an accepted legal precedant, it no longer matters why certain groups are not allowed to assemble. The government now has the power to ban any gatherings it pleases. For example; anti-war gatherings.

(Yeah, I know those white power gatherings usually aren't peaceful. But it typically isn't the white power types that start the violence. It's the morons stupid enough to allow themselves to be goaded by those dipshits.)

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I think what bothers me the most about this particular issue is that by covering this the way the media is, they are giving some sense of legitimacy to these protesters. The message doesn't really matter. That's not really the story. By conveying the protester's radical message they're endowing it with the very controversy and legitimacy the group seeks.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

I'm not entirely sure. By regulating time and place in this way, the government is preventing protestors from reaching their target audience. It'd be like protesting high gas prices and being ordered away from all gas stations and oil company offices-- at least until everyone's gone home. Their right to protest is still there, but it's hindering their ability to give an actual message.

Neither am I. Not completely anyway. The government did the same exact thing with the Republican National Convention in New York with their so-called "free speech zones". I don't think the legal challenge on those very same grounds you're talking about worked in court. Then again, I don't even remember hearing much about that after the election.

Originally Posted by Josiah

The town's solution? We held a "unity rally" on the other side of town at the same time as the KKK's rally, and the town rally got a pretty good turnout. I don't remember there being any report of violence.

That's probably the best way to handle it. The white power types get to practice the great American tradition of shouting into the wind, and your town denied the white power demonstration any sense of legitimacy. Everybody wins.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

I am generally for a ban on any specific organized hate speech (i.e. white power, any racist stuff, any anti-gay stuff, etc.), but I don't believe it should be allowed to open the door for a wholesale ban on other things (i.e. anti-war protests, etc.) . . . I'm thinking that the point you're trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the original intention doesn't matter because the first opening will just encourage the government to abuse the power and push it further; the basic "give an inch, take a mile" type of thing . . . Am I correct?

That was exactly the point I was trying to get across.

Well-intentioned liberals often take a similar tone. Realistic or not. They want to utilize authority in a benevolent manner by forcing us to get along with each other. (or the environment) This all seems rather shallow to me. By utilizing the laws and empowering government in such a fashion, a road that typically leads to a dictatorship is being traveled.

Power corrupts, and absolute power is pretty cool if you're the one wielding it.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

It actually doesn't say anything about the U.S. government specifically, since the phenomenon Watts speaks of isn't unique to the U.S. government. Accumulation and expansion of power are things governments do naturally.

It tends to speak more of the nature of human beings from a philosophical perspective.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?