Free Speech Zones: Real or Not?

[Evo]

So how does rational debate about particular social points take place. If you can't even get a well constructed argument into a public arena to challenge particular beliefs then what is the point in the first amendment?

Well, it's usually referred to as your right to vote. That's kind of the whole reason behind voting. You elect people to represent you and they are your voice (supposedly, in theory, that's how it's supposed to work).

If you have an issue, you write to the appropriate representative.

Of course there can be special issues which people feel can't wait to go through proper channels. You do have the right to peaceful assembly, but that doesn't mean that you can assemble anywhere, anytime, for any reason. You want to have a rally in a public space? You contact the proper authoriities and request a permit. They will approve the time and place and provide the necessary police protection. This may be just to route traffic, or crowd control, etc...

 

[devil-fire]

So how does rational debate about particular social points take place. If you can't even get a well constructed argument into a public arena to challenge particular beliefs then what is the point in the first amendment?

Well, it's usually referred to as your right to vote. That's kind of the whole reason behind voting. You elect people to represent you and they are your voice (supposedly, in theory, that's how it's supposed to work).

If you have an issue, you write to the appropriate representative.

there is much more to political participation then only the act of voting. for example, debate among citizens.

 

[Skyhunter]

there is much more to political participation then only the act of voting. for example, debate among citizens.

Good point. A healthy democracy needs debate and free expression of ideas.

[edit] Which is what PF's P&WA is all about [/edit]

 

[russ_watters]

So how does rational debate about particular social points take place. If you can't even get a well constructed argument into a public arena to challenge particular beliefs then what is the point in the first amendment? How then do you encourage debate in society about divided issues?

Where in the first amendment does it say anything about rational debate being required? All it is saying is that you have the right to speak yoru mind. It enforces no standard of debate, nor should it.

 

[Evo]

there is much more to political participation then only the act of voting. for example, debate among citizens.

Unfortunately in such a large society , other than local town hall debates, it's a bit hard to get a couple of miilion people in one room. :tongue2:

 

[russ_watters]

i would expect using aggressive body language and a raised voice would count. are you implying that wearing a dissident t-shirt and holding a sign like that is also a good indication that a person is going to become disruptive?

Certainly aggressive body language and a raised voice would count. But if you want to be as disruptive as possible, you need to act passive until the event you are intending to disrupt starts. So to answer your question, yes, wearing a dissenting t-shirt or holding a sign is an indication of a possibly disruptive person. Certainly, you wouldn't expect someone wearing non-dissenting apparel to be disruptive. If protesters were smart, they'd wear non-dissenting apparel in order to infiltrate the event, and then become disruptive. But wearing supportive apparel is probably too much for an ideologue to stomach.

 

[Skyhunter]

Certainly aggressive body language and a raised voice would count. But if you want to be as disruptive as possible, you need to act passive until the event you are intending to disrupt starts. So to answer your question, yes, wearing a dissenting t-shirt or holding a sign is an indication of a possibly disruptive person. Certainly, you wouldn't expect someone wearing non-dissenting apparel to be disruptive. If protesters were smart, they'd wear non-dissenting apparel in order to infiltrate the event, and then become disruptive. But wearing supportive apparel is probably too much for an ideologue to stomach.

I must not be much of an ideologue then, because that is exactly how I would do it. Infiltrate and then subvert the dominant paradigm.

 

[devil-fire]

If protesters were smart, they'd wear non-dissenting apparel in order to infiltrate the event, and then become disruptive. But wearing supportive apparel is probably too much for an ideologue to stomach.

unless the objective is to protest and not be disruptive.

 

[russ_watters]

That's an oxymoron.

 

[ray b]

That's an oxymoron.

to the newly-conned maybe

I take it that was in responce to

"unless the objective is to protest and not be disruptive.''

wearing a shirt and or holding a sign is not disruptive at a public political rally
or at a road side, sidewalk ect
moderate heckaling, as appossed to shouting down, is not disruptive
but is an attempt to start a dialog with a public offical
BuSh2 is the very first to demand loyalty oaths at political rallys
and see any disagreement as disruption
this clearly shows the current leadership doesnot care what the people think
and wants only flocks of brainwashed sheeple at their events
who only baa at the approved times