Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20110328/NEWS01/110328003/1002/Mansfield-tea-party-group-relocates-tonight-s-event

A local tea party group regularly meets at a local high school. The high school is open to "any recognized political party or organization for the purpose of conducting discussions of public questions and issues."

The tea party group invited a speaker to one of their meetings to discuss radical Islam. Not surprisingly, CAIR and the NAACP opposed the speaker.

Before the tea party group could hold their meeting, the principal of the school said that due to safety concerns, they wouldn't allow the tea party group to have their meeting at the high school.

Fortunately, the tea party group was able to find another location and, presumably, had a fruitful meeting.

Thoughts? Comments?

Fully in his rights to do that.

Also it was the Superintendent not the principle who told them top leave.

The tea party are a bunch of idiots who lick at Glen Beck and Bill O'reilly's every conspiratorial, idiotic word.

Not much better than the Westboro fanatics.

Karon wrote:The tea party are a bunch of idiots who lick at Glen Beck and Bill O'reilly's every conspiratorial, idiotic word.

Not much better than the Westboro fanatics.

3+

ehehe.

Karon wrote:The tea party are a bunch of idiots who lick at Glen Beck and Bill O'reilly's every conspiratorial, idiotic word.

Not much better than the Westboro fanatics.

So just to be clear: you're O.K. with threats of violence to stop someone from talking about something you disagree with.

biccat wrote:

Karon wrote:The tea party are a bunch of idiots who lick at Glen Beck and Bill O'reilly's every conspiratorial, idiotic word.

Not much better than the Westboro fanatics.

So just to be clear: you're O.K. with threats of violence to stop someone from talking about something you disagree with.

Wait one second. Glenn Beck can say that Democrats need to be shot, but when someone threatens republicans, it is all "Oh no, BLAMETHEVICTIM!!!!"?

Good for you. Chowderhead out.

biccat wrote:

Karon wrote:The tea party are a bunch of idiots who lick at Glen Beck and Bill O'reilly's every conspiratorial, idiotic word.

Not much better than the Westboro fanatics.

So just to be clear: you're O.K. with threats of violence to stop someone from talking about something you disagree with.

I don't get it, he never said anything about violence, he just said they were idiots. Saying such doesn't mean he encourages violence against them.

Interesting fact.

Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are all card carrying union members (American Federation Television and Radio Artists union AFTRA).

Mike Noble wrote:

biccat wrote:

Karon wrote:The tea party are a bunch of idiots who lick at Glen Beck and Bill O'reilly's every conspiratorial, idiotic word.

Not much better than the Westboro fanatics.

So just to be clear: you're O.K. with threats of violence to stop someone from talking about something you disagree with.

I don't get it, he never said anything about violence, he just said they were idiots. Saying such doesn't mean he encourages violence against them.

I didn't say he encouraged violence against them, just that he was O.K. with threats of violence against them.

Sidestepping trolling, I was curious what other people thought about the idea of a "heckler's veto". That is, using the threat of violence to force the government to shut down someone from speaking.

Obviously the government has a duty to protect the public, but they also have a duty to allow (in this case where the school was open to "any recognized political party or organization") free speech in public buildings.

In this case particularly, the school apparently didn't have substantiated threats, merely anonymous emails that threatened violence. What level of threat is necessary to cancel an event?

FWIW, I can easily find cases of "ebil-right-wing Rethuglikkkans" shutting down speeches by leftists, if that would make the idea of free speech easier to swallow.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Interesting fact.

Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are all card carrying union members (American Federation Television and Radio Artists union AFTRA).

Although I don't know their specific circumstances, I do know that to get into many jobs here in the States you basically have to be a union member. The Wisconsin teacher's union (NEA) includes all the teachers - whether they want to be in the union or not. I know many people (my current boss) who are/were in unions even though they didn't like it simply because they needed/wanted a job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Karon wrote:The tea party are a bunch of idiots who lick at Glen Beck and Bill O'reilly's every conspiratorial, idiotic word.

Not much better than the Westboro fanatics.

So just to be clear: you're O.K. with threats of violence to stop someone from talking about something you disagree with.

Wait one second. Glenn Beck can say that Democrats need to be shot, but when someone threatens republicans, it is all "Oh no, BLAMETHEVICTIM!!!!"?

Good for you. Chowderhead out.

Gleen Beck said Democrats need to be shot? Really? link?

Okay, onto the topic at hand. It's nothing new really. It happens on both sides and all the time. How many times has a person been unable to say what they believe because of the threat (perceived or real) of violence? I find it interesting that so many people on this thread seem to be okay with it in this instance.

Glen Beck is comparing liberals and Obama to the Nazi's and Hitler respectively.

If the Tea Party members listen to this guy and like him, they are just as bad as him.

Karon wrote:Glen Beck is comparing liberals and Obama to the Nazi's and Hitler respectively.

If the Tea Party members listen to this guy and like him, they are just as bad as him.

Once again, proof? Links? I'm not saying he's not prone to bouts of hyperbole. Just like I'm sure that those who compared Republicans to Fascists and such were being hyperbolic?

biccat wrote:http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20110328/NEWS01/110328003/1002/Mansfield-tea-party-group-relocates-tonight-s-event

A local tea party group regularly meets at a local high school. The high school is open to "any recognized political party or organization for the purpose of conducting discussions of public questions and issues."

The tea party group invited a speaker to one of their meetings to discuss radical Islam. Not surprisingly, CAIR and the NAACP opposed the speaker.

Before the tea party group could hold their meeting, the principal of the school said that due to safety concerns, they wouldn't allow the tea party group to have their meeting at the high school.

Fortunately, the tea party group was able to find another location and, presumably, had a fruitful meeting.

Thoughts? Comments?

Smalltime unimportant event between two bit player groups about a situation that is not fully disclosed to us. Not really our business to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Karon wrote:Glen Beck is comparing liberals and Obama to the Nazi's and Hitler respectively.

If the Tea Party members listen to this guy and like him, they are just as bad as him.

Once again, proof? Links? I'm not saying he's not prone to bouts of hyperbole. Just like I'm sure that those who compared Republicans to Fascists and such were being hyperbolic?

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i1s4fj-5zlk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why doesn't youtube embedding work any more?

Becuase it is just [youtube ]address[ /youtube] and not all that?

Ahtman wrote:Becuase it is just [youtube ]address[ /youtube] and not all that?

Is that this forums code? What I just provided was the embed code given by youtube on every one of its videos via their little embed button. It worked before.

ShumaGorath wrote:lt;iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i1s4fj-5zlk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why doesn't youtube embedding work any more?

Well we can still copy /paste and view this.

Glenn Beck has said some ridiculous things. I find it funny people back him when he says something they agree with, but ignore the amount of mindless drivel he spews at times. Selective memory? Want their cake and eat it too? I dunno.


Edit

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Gleen Beck said Democrats need to be shot? Really? link?

Okay, onto the topic at hand. It's nothing new really. It happens on both sides and all the time. How many times has a person been unable to say what they believe because of the threat (perceived or real) of violence? I find it interesting that so many people on this thread seem to be okay with it in this instance.

The article certainly does not have much coverage of this topic. The threat of violence came off to me as kind of an avoidance of issue answer. I personally do not see how any anti "X" religion can be good for any district, nor should it be in politics. As the stated above the article states "Use of the facilities is restricted to purposes deemed “harmonious with the purposes of this District.”". If someone wants to take a stance on anti "x" religion being good for governmentgo right ahead, and Glen Beck will compare you to HITLER(unless he agrees with you).

I think many people did not read the article, just saw what it involved (mainly a religious pissing contest, or fear mongering) and made statements not in line with the article at all. While the threat of violence seems to be perceived it very well may be an issue when groups of any kind preach intolerance, and try to get it indoctrinated in government. Lets not bring problems other parts of the world is having here! And yes, I know church and state are only separate on paper, it is a case of real versus ideal. An example of this is all religions say it is bad to kill another person, ideal, but it happens in the name of religions anyway ,real, or brush your teeth every time you eat (4-6 times a day!) ideal, and 1-3 times, real.

Replace tea party with KKK, another political group,and anti-islam rally with anti-Jewish faith rally. Sure my illustration may be considered disproportionate by some, but some people take intolerance very seriously. One may make claims of crazy behavior of the Islamic faith, but how much do they really know about it, how much of it is just a small group we are demonizing as the whole faith? Certaintly Christianity and the kkk may be viewed similarly in parts of the world due to similar propaganda the Tea Party and other groups do.


Biccat, I edited out a portion of this, I tore into you a bit due to your discourse with Karon. I did not feel his comment said anything at all what you construed it as, and your actions with it to be putting ridiculous point of view as his statement. Upon reflection I feel he did not comment on the article or possibly read it, and may have been out of context. Upon re-reading I felt it was an honest misinterpretation and your intent was not malicious! I apologize if I came off poorly.

I suggest to anyone who wants a little incite from a Christian man who wants to change for the good without preaching hate or intolerance to watch Dan Merchant's documentary "Lord, save us from your followers". He is a member of an evangelical church, this may make some people leery already, but don't judge before you watch it! He points out that many people who disagree with Christianity know much more about the other side than many of the proponents to the church know about the other. I think that last sentence is quite relevant to the article. The tea party could learn a 2 or thing from this man.

Oh and I am an Atheist, I usually stay clear of politics and religion due to it ending up as "HEATHEN SAVE YOURSELF" or "BLABLAHBLAHBLAH, listen to me, listen to me,I don't want to hear you because you are wrong". I know the majority of people with strong views are not like this, but holy hell it happens to me quiet often when I venture into the pool!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Becuase it is just [youtube ]address[ /youtube] and not all that?

Is that this forums code? What I just provided was the embed code given by youtube on every one of its videos via their little embed button. It worked before.

When you are in youtube. scroll down slightly and click the "historical format" or whatever its called button. See if that works.

J-Roc77 wrote:Glenn Beck has said some ridiculous things. I find it funny people back him when he says something they agree with, but ignore the amount of mindless drivel he spews at times. Selective memory? Want their cake and eat it too? I dunno.

I also find it funny that people who oppose everything he stands for and calls him a hate monger, yet doesn't listen to him. Although it's the same with just about every right-wing/conservative talkshow host.

J-Roc77 wrote:I personally do not see how any anti "X" religion can be good for any district, nor should it be in politics. As the stated above the article states "Use of the facilities is restricted to purposes deemed “harmonious with the purposes of this District.”".

The problem with this is that the school can open itself to public use, but once it does so, they can't regulate content. The school can't deny the use to a group whose message they disagree with, because they're a government agency.

In short, the government can limit who may speak, when they can speak, and how that message is communicated, but cannot limit what they talk about.

J-Roc77 wrote:While the threat of violence seems to be perceived it very well may be an issue when groups of any kind preach intolerance, and try to get it indoctrinated in government. Lets not bring problems other parts of the world is having here!

So the impression I get from this is that you're OK with the school censoring the speech at issue, but not OK with threats of violence to silence the speech? This is somewhat distressing.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Interesting fact.

Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are all card carrying union members (American Federation Television and Radio Artists union AFTRA).

Although I don't know their specific circumstances, I do know that to get into many jobs here in the States you basically have to be a union member. The Wisconsin teacher's union (NEA) includes all the teachers - whether they want to be in the union or not. I know many people (my current boss) who are/were in unions even though they didn't like it simply because they needed/wanted a job.

If they were forced to join then I'm surprised they aren't screaming down the houses about it, the fact they remain noticeably quiet on the matter suggests strongly they signed up to protect their pensions and jobs. Why have they not openly and loudly denounced the union membership and stated they would never call upon or want any union support or aid?

As to the Wisconsin Teacher's Union, as I read it, they do not force you to join, but instead extend their protection and benefits to all teachers... and that is bad why?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Interesting fact.

Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are all card carrying union members (American Federation Television and Radio Artists union AFTRA).

Although I don't know their specific circumstances, I do know that to get into many jobs here in the States you basically have to be a union member. The Wisconsin teacher's union (NEA) includes all the teachers - whether they want to be in the union or not. I know many people (my current boss) who are/were in unions even though they didn't like it simply because they needed/wanted a job.

If they were forced to join then I'm surprised they aren't screaming down the houses about it, the fact they remain noticeably quiet on the matter suggests strongly they signed up to protect their pensions and jobs. Why have they not openly and loudly denounced the union membership and stated they would never call upon or want any union support or aid?

As to the Wisconsin Teacher's Union, as I read it, they do not force you to join, but instead extend their protection and benefits to all teachers... and that is bad why?

I know that all three of them knock out big money every year, their pensions aren't the issue. It had everything to do with being in NYC and doing radio (which only Hannity does now in NY).

MeanGreenStompa wrote:As to the Wisconsin Teacher's Union, as I read it, they do not force you to join, but instead extend their protection and benefits to all teachers... and that is bad why?

Because they also make you pay dues, even if you aren't interested in their membership benefits.

So wait....

The school superintendent said that a group discussion/meeting that had the potential to get out of hand should find another location for that particular meeting is the same thing as the government telling us what we can and can't believe?

biccat wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote:Glenn Beck has said some ridiculous things. I find it funny people back him when he says something they agree with, but ignore the amount of mindless drivel he spews at times. Selective memory? Want their cake and eat it too? I dunno.

I also find it funny that people who oppose everything he stands for and calls him a hate monger, yet doesn't listen to him. Although it's the same with just about every right-wing/conservative talkshow host.

J-Roc77 wrote:I personally do not see how any anti "X" religion can be good for any district, nor should it be in politics. As the stated above the article states "Use of the facilities is restricted to purposes deemed “harmonious with the purposes of this District.”".

The problem with this is that the school can open itself to public use, but once it does so, they can't regulate content. The school can't deny the use to a group whose message they disagree with, because they're a government agency.

In short, the government can limit who may speak, when they can speak, and how that message is communicated, but cannot limit what they talk about.

J-Roc77 wrote:While the threat of violence seems to be perceived it very well may be an issue when groups of any kind preach intolerance, and try to get it indoctrinated in government. Lets not bring problems other parts of the world is having here!

So the impression I get from this is that you're OK with the school censoring the speech at issue, but not OK with threats of violence to silence the speech? This is somewhat distressing.

Wow, just wow. I see what you did there, I guess my first observation with your discourse with Karon is not that far off. In no way did I say that, and in no way putting such words in other peoples mouth makes you look better in a certain light or validate your argument. I do like how you did not address the parts of my post that you cannot refute, please tell me how an anti-religious gathering of any kind can be good for the district? Those are the guidelines for using the facilities. Reread the article, they can regulate the content, it must be pertinent to the district. I stated I felt they took the easy way out by just waving the safety flag rather than addressing the issue. I also stated that the threat may well have been real as the topic they are discussing is touchy, not at all what you distort my words to mean. You claim others here have trolled, however you are walking the line.

And yes I have seen Glenn Beck, and no I no longer watch him due to his actions, see the you tube video if you want a tidbit of why I think he is a joke. You assume I have not seen him as I generally disagree with him, I look and think before I judge. While Beck does have some valid points, the rest of his show undermines much of what he says. Opponents to Jon Stewart may have the same comments about him as I just said about Beck. Much of this may be played up for ratings, heck read the "endorsements " on the cover of Beck's book, the man can be hilarious!

If you are really interested in discourse on this subject, you may start by addressing questions and points more clearly rather than trying to blindly slander those who oppose you.

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:As to the Wisconsin Teacher's Union, as I read it, they do not force you to join, but instead extend their protection and benefits to all teachers... and that is bad why?

Because they also make you pay dues, even if you aren't interested in their membership benefits.

Uh... yea? They pay a REDUCED amount. Not full dues.

Why shouldn't someone, who benefits from the negotiations, not pay the organization to negotiate for them?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

J-Roc77 wrote:
If you are really interested in discourse on this subject, you may start by addressing questions and points more clearly rather than trying to blindly slander those who oppose you.

You haven't read many of his posts : p

J-Roc77 wrote:I do like how you did not address the parts of my post that you cannot refute, please tell me how an anti-religious gathering of any kind can be good for the district? Those are the guidelines for using the facilities. Reread the article, they can regulate the content, it must be pertinent to the district.

It doesn't matter if the "anti-religious" gathering is good or bad for the school. Once the school has opened itself up as a public forum, they can't regulate what is discussed in the forum. This is censorship, because it's the government saying what content is appropriate.

Even if the guidelines for using the facilities are limited to those "harmonious with the purposes of this District," such a restriction is unenforceable because it gives the government the final say over what is appropriate for discussion. If the superintendent says "Republican ideas are not harmonious with the school," and denied access to the venue to any Republican groups, would that be censorship or within his authority?

J-Roc77 wrote:I stated I felt they took the easy way out by just waving the safety flag rather than addressing the issue. I also stated that the threat may well have been real as the topic they are discussing is touchy, not at all what you distort my words to mean.

It's actually an unconstitutional limitation to require certain groups to pay more or deny access to facilities simply because the speech at issue might be controversial or prompt violence. What the school did here was take an unsubstantiated claim of violence (anonymous email) and use it as the basis to deny the speaker access to a public forum.

However, in both cases, what is being done is called a "heckler's veto," using threats of violence to shut down unpopular (or unwanted) speech. If an anonymous email is sufficient to deny access to a speaker, then the heckler has free reign over what type of speech will be allowed.

The balance the venue needs to measure is how likely is there to be violence and what cost would that entail against the free speech interest of the speakers.

edit:

J-Roc77 wrote:If you are really interested in discourse on this subject, you may start by addressing questions and points more clearly rather than trying to blindly slander those who oppose you.

I'm not sure what questions you asked. I skimmed your above post and didn't see any (non-rhetorical). As to any other points, I assume you aren't referring towards your anti-Beck comments, or comparison between Christianity and the KKK. I specifically addressed your suggestion that the "use of the facilities is restricted..." rule is dispositive of the issue. As for Dan Merchant, I think that's reasonably off topic and I didn't want to sidetrack.

If you could, please explain what points you made in your original post that I didn't address.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:Uh... yea? They pay a REDUCED amount. Not full dues.

Why shouldn't someone, who benefits from the negotiations, not pay the organization to negotiate for them?

Why should they be forced to benefit from the negotiations?

Union dues are a 'tax,' paid to a private entity, and non-members do not have any say in how their money is spent.

I tired to get the youtube video up, but it didn't work. I do recall reading a quote where Beck said he was thinking about killing Michael Moore. Weird.

biccat wrote: Why should they be forced to benefit from the negotiations?

Union dues are a 'tax,' paid to a private entity, and non-members do not have any say in how their money is spent.

Because it's too costly to negotiate with each individual person. This is why school boards negotiate with the union, it SAVES the board time and money. Unless you are for school boards wasting time and money on employees?

Non members money is reduced because they are paying for someone to negotiate on their behalf. They really aren't paying much and your argument is pretty silly. They pay around $200 a year for that here in NJ (give or take some based on the district they are in)

thats 20% of what union members typically pay per year.

And why is a tax bad? they are getting a benefit. YOU personally dont get any say on how your govt spends your tax money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
It doesn't matter if the "anti-religious" gathering is good or bad for the school. Once the school has opened itself up as a public forum, they can't regulate what is discussed in the forum. This is censorship, because it's the government saying what content is appropriate.

Ummm it wasn't opened up. No forum was. they said.. NO your group can't meet here this time. There was no debate actively going on, they simply decided that the topic they wanted to talk about was not something they wanted to be associated with that day

Although i have to say, the premise of this thread is pretty much trolling. I feel like when you posted it, you decided HEY THIS MAKES ME ANGRY! LET ME POST IT UP SO PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE AND I HAVE SOMEONE TO YELL AT!!!

But thats just my personal opion on the feel i get from reading this thread

frgsinwntr wrote:And why is a tax bad? they are getting a benefit. YOU personally dont get any say on how your govt spends your tax money.

We can argue about a tax being bad, but at least government-imposed taxes are controlled by elected officials.

Union-imposed taxes are not controlled by elected officials (unless you want death threats), which raises the "taxation without representation" issue.

There's also the added issue that non-union members are forced to contribute part of their paycheck to support political activities that they may not support.

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:And why is a tax bad? they are getting a benefit. YOU personally dont get any say on how your govt spends your tax money.

We can argue about a tax being bad, but at least government-imposed taxes are controlled by elected officials.

Union-imposed taxes are not controlled by elected officials (unless you want death threats), which raises the "taxation without representation" issue.

There's also the added issue that non-union members are forced to contribute part of their paycheck to support political activities that they may not support.

AGAIN. Not true. the money they give (at a huge discount) is payment for having a 3rd party negotiate for them. You're dead wrong here.

biccat wrote:
Union-imposed taxes are not controlled by elected officials (unless you want death threats), which raises the "taxation without representation" issue.

This isn't a tax, they pay for a service

frgsinwntr wrote:Ummm it wasn't opened up. No forum was. they said.. NO your group can't meet here this time. There was no debate actively going on, they simply decided that the topic they wanted to talk about was not something they wanted to be associated with that day

I was using the legal term.

A government building that allows people to speak there on certain issues is referred to as a "limited public forum." Once they make this determination, they are required under the 1st amendment to allow anyone who meets the basic issue criteria to use the facilities (according to the time restrictions). As long as the group wanting to use the facilities was a "recognized political party or organization" and the topic was "public questions and issues," the venue cannot discriminate based on the message.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:

biccat wrote:There's also the added issue that non-union members are forced to contribute part of their paycheck to support political activities that they may not support.

AGAIN. Not true. the money they give (at a huge discount) is payment for having a 3rd party negotiate for them. You're dead wrong here.

So the money collected from the non-members is segregated into a separate account and only used to pay for negotiation fees?

Color me skeptical.