rise up Rochester - Latest Comments in Obama Supporters Distain Free Speech

Re: Obama Supporters Distain Free Speech

Paul Denby — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:14:54 -0000

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read:

"I’m really puzzled Dave at your lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the freedom from hearing viewpoints that you don’t agree with. Sorry, not there. How could you say that one man using a megaphone is violated a crowd of hundreds’ rights? You would have really loved fascism."

Right, Andrew. Like you understand the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment likewise does not give the right to fringe nutcases like 911 truthers the right to disrupt public discourse. You're a failing movement, anyway, so it's not like you count.

Moreover, I can't even imagine the fascism that you fantasy about - hanging people based on whimsical evidence spewed by the dumbest members of the community. You certainly have 1st Amendment rights, but that doesn't give you, as an oddball dumbass anti-science Alex Jones nutjob, a veto right over public discourse. Otherwise, holocaust deniers, moon hoax nuts, homeopaths, etc. etc. could disrupt the free exchange of ideas.

Re: Obama Supporters Distain Free Speech

Harry Chrishnaw — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:27:59 -0000

Yes, the union guy should have been escorted away. But I think that the (flawed) thought process behind the removal of Harms is that if you grease (read: eliminate) the squeaky part the rest of the machine is going to run just fine.
Do you agree or disagree with Harms' mode of protest? Do you think it was effective?

Re: Obama Supporters Distain Free Speech

riseuprochester — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:51:40 -0000

Harry, I understand that's what probably happened. Unfortunately, shouldn't the union guy that wanted to fight him been the one to be escorted away? He was the only one who was threatening violence at all.

what a shame

Re: Obama Supporters Distain Free Speech

Harry Chrishnaw — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:44:17 -0000

The reason that Benjamin Harms was escorted off of the Belmont University property was a classic case of utilitarianism. I am in no way endorsing that philosophy, I am just stating the fact. Harms was being a "public nuisance". The police are obliged to keep the peace. In their minds the benefit of the whole is worth trampling on the rights of one to avoid any physical confrontation. If you noticed at the beginning of the video there was a United Steel Worker's Union member that was getting in Harms' face and getting angry. Looked to me like he was getting ready to punch him out.

Do you really expect the police to stand by and allow a fight or potentially a riot? It is unfortunate that Harms was unable to express his opinions about the problem with the two party system. One that I personally agree with 100%. But he probably could have come up with a better way to do it than yelling into a megaphone at a crowded rally.

I guarantee you not a single person came away thinking, "Man, that megaphone guy is right, there is a problem here." I assure you they left thinking, "I'm glad the cops shut that jackass up." Sad... very. True... very likely.

*shrug* We live in a strange time, my friends.

Re: Obama Supporters Distain Free Speech

riseuprochester — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:23:56 -0000

I'm really puzzled Dave at your lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech doesn't give you the freedom from hearing viewpoints that you don't agree with. Sorry, not there. How could you say that one man using a megaphone is violated a crowd of hundreds' rights? You would have really loved fascism.

I don't understand what you said here at all:

"First let me address the passage by Andrew Slominski. By writing negatively of Obama’s supporters, how are you being any better? Hypocrisy and contradictory writing is not a very good way to prove a point, especially if your attempts to be objective are muted by your choice candidate being implicit in your writing."

So Dave, I'm not allowed to criticize a clear violation of civil liberties? You are actually saying that by doing so I am just as bad as those who have violated someone else's civil liberties? That's not very logical.

"Hypocrisy"? "Contradictory Writing"? um, ok...

"...your attempt to be objective are muted by your choice candidate being implicit in your writing."

Really Dave? If you're so sure of that, who is my "choice candidate" anyway? Who am I going to vote for next month? If you're so sure you know then perhaps you could tell me. That would save me a lot of careful consideration. Thanks.

Re: Obama Supporters Distain Free Speech

Alicia O. — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:55:11 -0000

David, I can't address everything that you spoke about in your comment and I usually don't like to leave long posts, but I do want to take a minute to deal with the impressions your comment left.

It seems like you are trying to imply throughout your entire post that Andrew's article is pro-McCain. If you would take a minute to check the views that are represented on this site, you would know that for the most part the articles that have been written imply that neither McCain or Obama is fit for the job.

In fact, in this video the protester is shouting that Obama and McCain are the same. That was his point. He wasn't there to bash Obama, rather he was there to protest the two-party system. "They aren't debating anything," he says as he walks up to a group holdin McCain posters.

Your last comment about race, skin color etc. is completely irrelevant. Nowhere in the article did Andrew or Watson or the protester say that they were using these concepts to formulate an opinion of the candidate. In fact, this site is in the habit of actually looking at "scorecards." Andrew isn't throwing around partisanship because he isn't affiliated with any party. Unless your comments are referring to the support that Andrew has shown for Ron Paul on this site (who is no longer in the race) then I don't see how that was relevant. Was that more of a side-note you wanted other people to see?

I fundamentally disagree with the "lesser-of-the-two-evils" argument. How is progress ever to be achieved when we just hand the baton off to people with varying degrees of evilness? I'm not saying that I have the answer, but I am saying that you are simply representing the two-party paradigm: detached career politicians with ideas that don't end up differing that much from one another.

It seems like you are comparing the McCain supporters "kill him" chant to this guy protesting amongst the Obama candidates in that you think they are both similar misuses of freedom of speech. If you are making this comparison, I don't think that it's valid. Shouting "kill him" is clearly an abuse of free-speech and is also a tangible threat, however some guy with a megaphone shouting that Obama and McCain are the same doesn't threaten anyone's safety. I don't see how he was infringing on anyone else's freedom of speech. Because he was on private property, I can see that authorities had the right to ask him not to use the megaphone or to leave if he was causing a ruckus, but he wasn't hurting anyone. Why do the Obama supporters or McCain supporters have any more right to give their opinions than he?

Re: Obama Supporters Distain Free Speech

Dave Kraft — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:29:46 -0000

The arrest of Benjamin Harms was not a matter of the police violating his free speech. He did a good enough job of that himself. There do happen to be legal restrictions on the extents to which rights can be exercised. Here is a more accurate breakdown of the situation, keeping my choice for candidate out of this:

There are restrictions on free speech, and violations of these restrictions (according to the law) translates a right into a privilege upon their abuse. Think about it like a "terms of service" agreement with a piece of software. One example (of many) of such a restriction on the first amendment is the classic case of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no real fire. This causes panic and can lead to people getting hurt. This is a form of "disturbing the peace," which is a violation of the first amendment right.

People also have the right to public assembly under the Bill of Rights, which does fall under the first amendment. The actions of Benjamin Harms in this video disrupt and interfere with the Obama supporters exercising their first amendment right to do so. Any act or exercising of a right that interferes with the inalienable rights of another is a violation of that right.

Therefore, Benjamin Harms wasn't escorted away for simply expressing his opinions as an extension of his first-amendment right. Rather, he was escorted away and threatened with being arrested because his actions were illegal, and was taken away for breaking the law.

The above reflects in no way, shape, or form my party affiliation, nor does it reflect my preference of candidate in this election. Now, if I may depart briefly from the video itself and comment on your leading paragraph:

Let me start breaking it down from beginning to end. You start by saying, "Police kicked protester Benjamin Harms off Belmont University campus this week before the presidential debate for the crime of “trespassing” as hundreds of mindless Obama supporters cheered the outright violation of free speech."

Let's take a look at this, shall we?

First let me address the passage by Andrew Slominski. By writing negatively of Obama's supporters, how are you being any better? Hypocrisy and contradictory writing is not a very good way to prove a point, especially if your attempts to be objective are muted by your choice candidate being implicit in your writing. This becomes a situation of the pot calling the kettle black.

As far as Obama "not taking any option off the table," just look at the War in Iraq. We rushed in half-cocked and look where we are now. This war is not popular with many Republicans and Democrats alike. I find it admirable that Obama wishes to consider his options before taking a risk and possibly making a strategic blunder. It shows he's using his brain, which contemporary politics is not very famous for.

On the issue of going into Pakistan, I would like to put some emphasis on the "if necessary" part of your own sentence. To me, it makes more sense to go in if necessary and not for no reason (again, look at Iraq, which was not where the Taliban forces were before we went into the region because of faulty intelligence).

You're right in saying a citizen has a right to explain the bail-out situation. However, the format in which Benjamin Harms did so was inappropriate and violated his first amendment right to do so.

As far as Mr. Watson's article goes, you even mention yourself that the Obama supporters "cheered the outright violation of free speech." If it is an outright violation of free speech, then aren't the Obama supporters in the right to cheer the police chastising an individual for breaking the law? Doesn't that show our police are doing a good job enforcing the law, and that our tax dollars are doing some good? I find your article rather contradictory and the posture in which anti-Obama feelings were expressed in these two articles to be highly dubious.

Now, don't get me wrong; both candidates have had their screw-ups and things I do disagree with. However, this situation is a phenomenon grown out of the McCain campaign, which, like the Bush Administration, operates on the politics of fear. The Obama campaign has been much more civil in its message, and if an Obama supporter were to disrupt the right to public assembly, he will (and has) single that person out as a bad example for the rest of Obama supporters and deal with it as immediately as possible. While Obama mainly focuses his campaign on policy issues, McCain, allowed members of his campaign (such as his running mate) to repeatedly slam Barack on a personal level, promoting xenophobia in an effort to make Obama seem alien to the American people (hence "politics of fear"). It was only recently, after many months of negative campaigning, that McCain owned up to what he did and attempted in a public forum to set the record straight. When McCain supporters shout "kill him" at his and Palin's rallies, it shows lack of respect for a Presidential candidate and, in an attempt to get back on topic, abuses the right to free speech.

When I was a wee Dave Kraft, my Kindergarten teacher would always tell me, "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it." Obama's talking down to or about McCain have been responses to slander and falsehoods on the conservative side of things in an attempt to set the record straight.

Before there is any confusion, this still isn't reflective of my candidate choice, and I'll tell you why:

While Barack Obama was still battling against Hillary, one of his former campaign staff members was filmed saying that President Obama may be very different from Candidate Obama. At the same point, John McCain the Senator is a much more respectable individual than John McCain the candidate, and I would've voted for him four years ago if he had gotten the Republican nomination. We have no idea how John McCain the President will be any different from Senator or candidate McCain, if at all. After months of negative campaigning, the Senator McCain finally started to shine through a bit when he repudiated the negative comments of his campaign, but that didn't last long as he kept campaigning negatively.

Candidates say what they say to get votes and for no other reason. How they are as candidates and how they are in the Oval Office are two entirely different things (unless you're Bill Clinton, who gave new meaning to the Oval Office in more ways than one). To use a saying from the glory days of the 1980s, given time both candidates are "more than meets the eye." Rather than making personal attacks on candidates, I'd recommend not just listening to what they say but also do fact-checking online (using objective, non-liberal and non-conservative sources, so no CNN, no MSNBC, no Fox News, etc.) to see what is true and what is not.

If I may exercise my own free speech, all politicians are corrupt in one sense or another, with more skeletons in their closets than an undertaker's convention. This is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils based on the policies they put forth, not based on skin color, gender, religion, or ethnic background. The way to figure this out is to do your fact-checking, tally up the falsities on a score card and find out who the biggest liar is. But throwing around your partisanship isn't going to solve this country's problems.