Folks, In the last 24 hours there’s been a mix of sensible, informed comments and some others.
I want to respond more fully to those comments this evening. Also at that time I’ll respond to some other comments made this past week.
For now, I just want to share this set of comments from this post thread with you.
just a thought
in responding to a Chronicle letter writer who said in part:
Now while I completely respect people's opinion and their ability to protest, shouting down Rove only infringes his right to speak-the very right being invoked by the protesters.said ---
I hate to be the one to point this out, but these are rights the government cannot take away. The constitution does not say you have the right to speak without others interrupting. If it did, only the mutes in our society would be free. There is no right being infringed by the protestors, whether you agree with them or not.
Dear just a thought,
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have held that government can regulate the time and place of speech. One reason for that is to protect the speech of citizens who might be shouted down and in other ways harressed by "activists."
Consider, for example, what the Communists' and Nazis' "activists" did to the German democratic center, center-right and center-left speakers and meetings during the late 20's and early 30s.
I'm sure other commentors will be along to further correct and inform you.
Now a caution ---
You are really "wondering" on the Plame matters.
Each time someone points out your errors, you shift terms and re-define the issues.
That's a sign of a troll.
I welcome thoughtful debate at JinC but ad hominems and babble have no place here, even if they're now welcome at many of our high-tuition universities.
And, of course, there are millions of other blogs. Ad hominems and babble are welcome at many of them, too.
I hope you can understand my desire to keep JinC a place where people can have reasoned, fact-based discussions with respect for diversity indicated by the care and respect shown for those who offer reasoned, fact-based contrary points of view.
Ralph Phelan said...
The constitution does not say you have the right to speak without others interrupting.
I'd like to hire someone to follow you around with an air horn and push the button every time you try to talk. By your reasoning it wouldn't violate any of your rights.
That's such a brilliant comment that so perfectly makes the case for why we just can't give "activists" and "protestors" the right to shout down those they disagree with.
Do you mind if I use it sometime and don't give you credit?