People should not have to pay a penalty for the speech they utter in a liberal democracy. If we do pay a price for protest then we are neither free nor self-governing.
Unfortumately, there is no criminalization of lies about the Israeli government, itas enforcement of social and economic apartheid. Otherwise AIPAC would have to devote its treasury to defending its lobvyists in DC from prosecution. You are presumed to be intelligent and research willing enough to be 1) sceptical and 2) a fact checker.
On one level I believe protesters should have enough strength in their convictions to show their faces. On a practical level I can see where the argument could be used to remove anonymity in other areas such as social media and undercover journalism. So, while I believe individual institutions may be within their rights to present limitations on facial covering in their code of conduct I don't believe laws should be written at the municipal, state or federal level. In our current situation, with a judicial system being weaponized against individuals, I'm very wary of any legislation that presents the government more options to silence opposition.
I believe THE POINT of the 1st Amendment is to be protected from persecution for voicing your grievances. Logically, if you can't be persecuted and therefore prosecuted for protesting, there's no need to hide your face. Accountability is not persecution.
I went and read your post about Dershowitz' legacy, and I agree with you 100%. This act he's doing is about maintaining his relevance and making money. It feels like he's prostituting himself. Pun intended. At least he is an adult.
Why is it that every conversation has to instantly devolve into insults? I'm not against Palestinians, and I'm certainly not "for" Bibi. I DO NOT AGREE WITH Dershowitz on targeting the peaceful protesters, i.e., "cancelling" them, because they don't agree with his Israeli near-absolutism. It's not the peaceful ones wearing the masks. If you talk like a Nazi, or a Hammas agent, or the KKK, take of your fucking hood and let's see your face. I stand by my opinions, mask off.
Lastly, there is no good answer on the Hammas war. We, the West, allowed this to brew for too long. Allowed Israel to encroach on land that's not theirs with "settlements" against international law. However, this is now. Palestinian anti-Semitism is as hard to change in the minds of Palestinians as it is to convince Christians the Christ might not be the Messiah. At least most of the Christians aren't hell bent anymore on killing all the non-Christians.
Our hearts are in the right place obviously. But without criticizing your opinion of the third paragrasph, which many share and which once was a prevailing rule, it simply is not the law of the land. Rather it is a former state of law we have evolved away from - - - mainly because forcing identification of the speaker would chill or infringe completelhy free speech - - - and then you would no longer have it. Not that Dershowitz would care- - -his opinions shift with the needs of Israel.
I have evolved away from the absolutist stance on many "rights". No, I'm not a teenager. The "law of the land" assertion. Over time, and across the globe, laws change. A gun nut recently quoted Dred Scott as proof that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. At least most of that ruling has gone by the wayside. As for recent 1st Amendment decisions, I adamantly oppose the assertion that money is speech, especially in the context of the now ubiquitous superPACs. I don't agree with it whether it's on my side or not. I still believe that the 1st Amendment was written under the assumption that it was not applicable to verbal assault and noise pollution. The debate on where that line is crossed is a valid one, but there is a line.
Hi. IMO there cannot be a decipherable line because there is no objective way to distinguish verbal assault from noise pollution. It is like distinguishing porn from art; the line is sensed only subjectively. which is incompatible with the concept of Rule of Law. And anyway verbal assault or "ad hominum" attacks coupled with logic, analysis and facts were actually popularized by Cicero and became a part of Roman oratory . One fundamental problem with Dershowitz propaganda is that he goes for naked ad hominum attacks "Hitlerite. Hitler Youth, Storm Trooper, Brownshirt, Nazi - - -incidentally describing Netanyahu, Gallant, Bennet and Lapid, Ben Gvir and Smotrich- - scum, ignoramus, idiot, half wit," etc. . Another is that Dersh is a he is a devoted partisan servant of the zionist cause. A third is his fundamental lack of empathy for Gentiles. A fourth is his outrageously immoral activities in association with Jeffrey Epstein. A fifth is his corruption of the legal system and a payment of 7 figure hush money to evade criminal indictment and civil liability for specified activities. Where he has been, he has hurt and betrayed people, especially the very young and vulnerable. Had he morality, he could have at least regretted actions and told the police about Epstein many years before. Priviledge was no bar considering what Epstein was doing. Ad hominum attacks for Dershowitz are a betrayal of his education and his meritus status as well as being his diversion of public memory of that immoral background. But that background keeps coming back and even his BFF Netanyahu was motivated by it when Dersh was refused an engagement defending Israel at the ICJ.
There will always be a need to identify protesters who advocate the destruction of the Constitution, the United States and Israel, or the death of public officials (to give examples). Therefore it’s foolish not to determine the identity of “pro Gaza”, “pro Hamas”, “pro Iran”, BLM, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. The police should arrest, interrogate, investigate when needed to protect the public and our country.
I was just watching "The Man in the High Castle".. Mr O'Brien comes across in this comment, and others, as someone sent dir4ctly from Central Casting for a role..
Great to hear you speak on Constitutional Rights. I agree 100% with today's discussion and the teaching of critical thinking. I think that people protesting, on any issue, should always be unmasked. Otherwise like you say, they are cowards. I post comments everywhere, but I always use my real name. Could a law be passed requiring unmasked protests? I doubt it could be done or enforced...After all, the authorities in some States let pass violent protests without action, like the BLM riots, where thousands of businesses were destroyed and several people killed, why would they care about masks? How could they stop them? They couldn't or wouldn't even stop the rioting, or charge the rioters, forget about masks. Not much point in passing a law that cannot be or would not be enforced.
What is different from normal thinking and critical thinking’ ? There should be none. I guess I’d ask what are TWO deliverables to be taught and assessed
As to the Constitution - this is Pandora’s Box on speed. For example, are we linking back to Cyrus the Great, King John, William and Mary Duke and Duchess of Orange.
Straight out of- no masks; no guns (masked people, dressed in black, carrying AR platforms ? ). Time to have a great big bite out of the logical apple and consider the fear these silly people put into innocent and normal citizen
Yes!!
People should not have to pay a penalty for the speech they utter in a liberal democracy. If we do pay a price for protest then we are neither free nor self-governing.
Finally.
Do media outlets have the right to spew lies about Israel?
Unfortumately, there is no criminalization of lies about the Israeli government, itas enforcement of social and economic apartheid. Otherwise AIPAC would have to devote its treasury to defending its lobvyists in DC from prosecution. You are presumed to be intelligent and research willing enough to be 1) sceptical and 2) a fact checker.
They have the right to be arrested and either be deported or exiled.
This guy has no knowledge of American law.
I’m so tired of people hiding behind fake covid masks so they can commit crimes
Not much nuance for a PhD- - -is demonstraion a crime accfording to Mary Lou's education?
On one level I believe protesters should have enough strength in their convictions to show their faces. On a practical level I can see where the argument could be used to remove anonymity in other areas such as social media and undercover journalism. So, while I believe individual institutions may be within their rights to present limitations on facial covering in their code of conduct I don't believe laws should be written at the municipal, state or federal level. In our current situation, with a judicial system being weaponized against individuals, I'm very wary of any legislation that presents the government more options to silence opposition.
I believe THE POINT of the 1st Amendment is to be protected from persecution for voicing your grievances. Logically, if you can't be persecuted and therefore prosecuted for protesting, there's no need to hide your face. Accountability is not persecution.
Dan must be a teenager. He has no practical awareness of social opprobrium, blacklisting, Dershowitz's efforts to make protesters unemployable.
So, Greg,
I went and read your post about Dershowitz' legacy, and I agree with you 100%. This act he's doing is about maintaining his relevance and making money. It feels like he's prostituting himself. Pun intended. At least he is an adult.
Why is it that every conversation has to instantly devolve into insults? I'm not against Palestinians, and I'm certainly not "for" Bibi. I DO NOT AGREE WITH Dershowitz on targeting the peaceful protesters, i.e., "cancelling" them, because they don't agree with his Israeli near-absolutism. It's not the peaceful ones wearing the masks. If you talk like a Nazi, or a Hammas agent, or the KKK, take of your fucking hood and let's see your face. I stand by my opinions, mask off.
Lastly, there is no good answer on the Hammas war. We, the West, allowed this to brew for too long. Allowed Israel to encroach on land that's not theirs with "settlements" against international law. However, this is now. Palestinian anti-Semitism is as hard to change in the minds of Palestinians as it is to convince Christians the Christ might not be the Messiah. At least most of the Christians aren't hell bent anymore on killing all the non-Christians.
Our hearts are in the right place obviously. But without criticizing your opinion of the third paragrasph, which many share and which once was a prevailing rule, it simply is not the law of the land. Rather it is a former state of law we have evolved away from - - - mainly because forcing identification of the speaker would chill or infringe completelhy free speech - - - and then you would no longer have it. Not that Dershowitz would care- - -his opinions shift with the needs of Israel.
I have evolved away from the absolutist stance on many "rights". No, I'm not a teenager. The "law of the land" assertion. Over time, and across the globe, laws change. A gun nut recently quoted Dred Scott as proof that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. At least most of that ruling has gone by the wayside. As for recent 1st Amendment decisions, I adamantly oppose the assertion that money is speech, especially in the context of the now ubiquitous superPACs. I don't agree with it whether it's on my side or not. I still believe that the 1st Amendment was written under the assumption that it was not applicable to verbal assault and noise pollution. The debate on where that line is crossed is a valid one, but there is a line.
Hi. IMO there cannot be a decipherable line because there is no objective way to distinguish verbal assault from noise pollution. It is like distinguishing porn from art; the line is sensed only subjectively. which is incompatible with the concept of Rule of Law. And anyway verbal assault or "ad hominum" attacks coupled with logic, analysis and facts were actually popularized by Cicero and became a part of Roman oratory . One fundamental problem with Dershowitz propaganda is that he goes for naked ad hominum attacks "Hitlerite. Hitler Youth, Storm Trooper, Brownshirt, Nazi - - -incidentally describing Netanyahu, Gallant, Bennet and Lapid, Ben Gvir and Smotrich- - scum, ignoramus, idiot, half wit," etc. . Another is that Dersh is a he is a devoted partisan servant of the zionist cause. A third is his fundamental lack of empathy for Gentiles. A fourth is his outrageously immoral activities in association with Jeffrey Epstein. A fifth is his corruption of the legal system and a payment of 7 figure hush money to evade criminal indictment and civil liability for specified activities. Where he has been, he has hurt and betrayed people, especially the very young and vulnerable. Had he morality, he could have at least regretted actions and told the police about Epstein many years before. Priviledge was no bar considering what Epstein was doing. Ad hominum attacks for Dershowitz are a betrayal of his education and his meritus status as well as being his diversion of public memory of that immoral background. But that background keeps coming back and even his BFF Netanyahu was motivated by it when Dersh was refused an engagement defending Israel at the ICJ.
There will always be a need to identify protesters who advocate the destruction of the Constitution, the United States and Israel, or the death of public officials (to give examples). Therefore it’s foolish not to determine the identity of “pro Gaza”, “pro Hamas”, “pro Iran”, BLM, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. The police should arrest, interrogate, investigate when needed to protect the public and our country.
I was just watching "The Man in the High Castle".. Mr O'Brien comes across in this comment, and others, as someone sent dir4ctly from Central Casting for a role..
You are correct, people who wear masks to protest are cowards!
No. The cowards are those who refuse to leave the company of the pack and think/act for themselves.
Great to hear you speak on Constitutional Rights. I agree 100% with today's discussion and the teaching of critical thinking. I think that people protesting, on any issue, should always be unmasked. Otherwise like you say, they are cowards. I post comments everywhere, but I always use my real name. Could a law be passed requiring unmasked protests? I doubt it could be done or enforced...After all, the authorities in some States let pass violent protests without action, like the BLM riots, where thousands of businesses were destroyed and several people killed, why would they care about masks? How could they stop them? They couldn't or wouldn't even stop the rioting, or charge the rioters, forget about masks. Not much point in passing a law that cannot be or would not be enforced.
What is different from normal thinking and critical thinking’ ? There should be none. I guess I’d ask what are TWO deliverables to be taught and assessed
As to the Constitution - this is Pandora’s Box on speed. For example, are we linking back to Cyrus the Great, King John, William and Mary Duke and Duchess of Orange.
This is an important area.
Right, Michel is not a coward. He might be more evolved if he read more deeply and diversely.
Straight out of- no masks; no guns (masked people, dressed in black, carrying AR platforms ? ). Time to have a great big bite out of the logical apple and consider the fear these silly people put into innocent and normal citizen
Is this from Kamala?
Nah - I’m better looking