Bad Boys II

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2020, 02:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I follow the "hydrate before you caffeinate" mantra. I go through roughly 40 oz or so of water before I drink my coffee.

Seems logical. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-30-2020, 12:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: This is reductio ad bothsideum at work, fellas.

You missed the important part of the post: that this is something that has been happening for a long time and, unfortunately, has to be expected if you enter into politics or put yourself in the public eye.

(06-30-2020, 12:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I don't give a shit if both sides do it, or how long they've done it, neither should. Unless a minor puts themselves into politics/public forum by their own choice, they should be off limits and your home should be a place of safety. Period. Regardless of your job.

I would agree with your sentiment. The point I was making was that Dino was (correctly) pointing out that it is something you have to expect when you enter into the public eye.

(06-30-2020, 12:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Bels, I am sure you'd be fine with protests in front of homes until it goes in front of your home and your neighbors start to hate you, your HOA (or apartment building) kicks you out, and you find yourself being forced to move every time the protesters find your new address or until you cave to whatever the protests demands are (until a different group of protesters from the opposite side then protest THAT decision).

If a group of protesters wanted to set up outside my home, they are more than welcome to. I live on a cul-de-sac and they could do it quite safely, actually. My address is a matter of public record as an appointed official for my city of residence, as well. If people don't like decisions I make in that role, they could certainly come and protest outside my home. Granted, there is no HOA here (because people who deal with those are suckers) and my neighbors can gripe, but I don't like most of them, so whatever.

(06-30-2020, 12:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm also sure that both of you will be just as casual and accepting of the shitty nature of people protesting outside homes if sometime in the future there's some news story with photos of a couple hundred angry white people in MAGA hats (or the douchiest of assholes in polo shirts holding tiki torches) start surrounding the private homes of minority politicians. "As long as it's public property, I don't care." - Definitely not Bels at that time.

As long as they are on public property and not a threat to public safety, I would still not care. Just like I wouldn't have cared when they did that over at UVA if they hadn't attacked peaceful counter-protesters.

(06-30-2020, 12:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: A private home is not a place for protest, and children should be left out of politics unless they themselves join in first. The end.

Agreed, but the Constitution allows for peaceable assembly and so if they are on public property and not a threat to public safety, then they have the right to be there.

(06-30-2020, 01:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Classic "circle jerk" argument.

That's literally a quote from Bels. If that's not casually accepting or fine, what is? You can't be like "oh it's sure a shame" and then be "I don't care. Protest away." and pretend like you're not supporting the right to protest in front of people's private homes. But Fred does not want to argue against that position, so he just pretends they didn't say that and just focuses on the part where they said "a shame".

I support the right to protest in front of people's homes if they are on public property and not a threat to public safety because that is a civil liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. You have a problem with it? Take it up with the framers.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2020, 02:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I support the right to protest in front of people's homes if they are on public property and not a threat to public safety because that is a civil liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. You have a problem with it? Take it up with the framers.

Rep.

[Dill]

(06-30-2020, 02:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Related to the conversation, now there's a guillotine set up outside Bezos' house.



Smaller crowd, but just continues my view that private homes should be out of bounds for protests.

Social distancing. Well I approve of that, though not the guillotine.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2020, 02:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Related to the conversation, now there's a guillotine set up outside Bezos' house.



Smaller crowd, but just continues my view that private homes should be out of bounds for protests.

Since your main concerns seemed to be "What about the children!?!?!" and "What about the neighbors!?!?!?" why does this example support your position since there are no children or neighbors involved?

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2020, 12:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So as long as a politician is unpopular to 50 or so unemployed people with nothing better to do, you're good with people parked outside their house 24/7, while 7am to 10pm (or whenever the local ordinance allows for unrestricted noise) drum protests outside their house? 

From a strictly constitutional standpoint? Yes. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2020, 10:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't see how it would.  The first amendment specifically states the right to peaceably assemble.  You're not peaceably assembling if you're terrorizing a family in their own home.

Peaceful and terrorizing are subjective terms. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2020, 11:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is another example of labeling all protestors as "terrorists".

I didn't label anyone as a terrorist, please don't state I said something I did not.  Terrorizing someone is not analogous to being a terrorist.  I would think a child would find a large mob of angry people outside my house to be pretty terrifying.  Hell, I'd bet many, if not most, adults, would feel the same way.

 

Quote:From what I can tell the protests outside the Mayors house were peaceful.

You mean after they forcibly tore down the wrought iron gate to trespass on private property? 

Quote:This is not a good case to argue against a protest in front of a private property because the mayor started the problem by giving out home addresses of people that were opposed to her.

 
Wait, what?  You are never allowed to protest on private property without permission.  It's breaking a law called "trespassing".  Also, the mayor started it?  That's an elementary school level justification.  While I wholly understand people being livid about being doxed, protesting outside her home is not directly comparable.  Unless you're asserting that the people she doxed all had crowds of people protesting outside their homes as well.

Quote:You can't complain about people coming to your home when you have put the home addresses of your critics out in the media.

Sure you can, it's not a direct correlation.  Is there a mathematical formula for when you're allowed to complain versus not?  In any event, the whole discussion is rendered moot when the protestors forcibly broke an entering into private property and then proceeded to trespass to protest.  This is a wholly separate issue to those of us who take issue with people (any people) protesting outside a residence (any residence) in a public area.  They have zero right to protest on private property and they certainly have to right to break an entering into said private property to do so.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2020, 08:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Thanks Matt.

Yeah, no one WANTS it to happen but it does.

This board had some very upset people that even the word "Baron" was used without it being an attack on the President's son.  As I said in my post I feel bad for the families.  It's one reason I would never run for office.  My wife and kids should not have to suffer because some people disagree with ME.

I wish it didn't happen but it does.  And Matt's 100% right that is both sides.

And I'll add this goes for all kinds of public figures from movie stars to television personalities.  They see their families get dragged through the machine with them whether they like it or not.

So we all agree that it's bad, should we not all agree that it should stop?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2020, 07:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Peaceful and terrorizing are subjective terms. 

Agreed.  Would you say that tearing down a gate to gain access to trespass on private property and then protest to be more subjectively the former or the latter?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2020, 02:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agreed, but the Constitution allows for peaceable assembly and so if they are on public property and not a threat to public safety, then they have the right to be there.


I support the right to protest in front of people's homes if they are on public property and not a threat to public safety because that is a civil liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. You have a problem with it? Take it up with the framers.

I don't disagree with your logic, but I am saying that I think this could be an obvious area for a reasonable restriction.  I see no damage  in limiting the ability to protest outside a person's private residence.  The White House?  All day.  Gracie Mansion? All day.  A private person's residence because the blue check mark crowd didn't like one of his/her tweets, no, I'm not cool with that.  Understand that I realize it's completely legal, I just think that should change.  It's clearly not a direct analogy, but it reminds me of the right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2020, 08:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agreed.  Would you say that tearing down a gate to gain access to trespass on private property and then protest to be more subjectively the former or the latter?

The video of them entering the private street shows the gate open and not detached, but I would not use that the fact that they are on a private street to suggest that it was an inherently terrorizing act. 

I would need to see video of the actual protest itself to place it on this spectrum.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2020, 08:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The video of them entering the private street shows the gate open and not detached, but I would not use that the fact that they are on a private street to suggest that it was an inherently terrorizing act. 

I would need to see video of the actual protest itself to place it on this spectrum.

Fair enough.  Let me ask this, say the gated area was the property of a single person, meaning the entire walled area surrounded the residence of a single family.  Would that make the trespassing of the protestors more or less terrorizing?  How about we use the word frightening instead, to avoid offending people.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2020, 09:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fair enough.  Let me ask this, say the gated area was the property of a single person, meaning the entire walled area surrounded the residence of a single family.  Would that make the trespassing of the protestors more or less terrorizing?  How about we use the word frightening instead, to avoid offending people.

I think entering a gated private yard would definitely fall on the terrorizing side of the spectrum. 

[GMDino]

(06-30-2020, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So we all agree that it's bad, should we not all agree that it should stop?

Of course people should not go after the children and families of public people.  That goes without saying.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

[Belsnickel]

(06-30-2020, 08:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with your logic, but I am saying that I think this could be an obvious area for a reasonable restriction.  I see no damage  in limiting the ability to protest outside a person's private residence.  The White House?  All day.  Gracie Mansion? All day.  A private person's residence because the blue check mark crowd didn't like one of his/her tweets, no, I'm not cool with that.  Understand that I realize it's completely legal, I just think that should change.  It's clearly not a direct analogy, but it reminds me of the right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

I don't think it is a reasonable restriction. The "end of the nose" in this case would be the property line. Protesting in the public space outside of a person's home is kind of like the annoying sibling going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" but they haven't touched the nose. When I think about the free speech/assembly protections of the First Amendment I can't see this sort of regulation meeting the strict scrutiny guidelines. If it can't meet those guidelines, then it isn't reasonable, IMHO.

[GMDino]

I wanted to add something I was thinking about this morning.

Maybe we should try and stop people running for office from using their families as political props too.  Symbols of their "all-american goodness".

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2020, 08:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  A private person's residence because the blue check mark crowd didn't like one of his/her tweets, no, I'm not cool with that.

Here is a point that is getting lost in the argument.

Protesting should only be done to get a person to exercise their authority as either an elected official or a corporate executive.  There should not be any mass protests just because an actor says something people don't like.

[GMDino]

(07-01-2020, 10:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is a point that is getting lost in the argument.

Protesting should only be done to get a person to exercise their authority as either an elected official or a corporate executive.  There should not be any mass protests just because an actor says something people don't like.

And even though SSF couldn't help himself from taking a shot at the "blue" checkmark crowd, I am pretty sure he woul apply this same argument to the "red" group also.

"Blue checkmark crowd" is a shot at people who have been verified by Twitter.  Doesn't eman "blue vs red".  It is being used a lot (not sure if this what SSF meant) because so many "famous" people have the check mark.  Donald Trump is part of that "crowd".  Now that includes people on both sides of the political spectrum but conservatives feel social media is biased and unfair against them so they attack the platforms and other users even as they use it themselves.

[fredtoast]

(07-01-2020, 10:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: "Blue checkmark crowd" is a shot at people who have been verified by Twitter.  Doesn't eman "blue vs red".  It is being used a lot (not sure if this what SSF meant) because so many "famous" people have the check mark.  Donald Trump is part of that "crowd".  Now that includes people on both sides of the political spectrum but conservatives feel social media is biased and unfair against them so they attack the platforms and other users even as they use it themselves.

Ahh, I see.

I still think SSF would want the same rules to apply to both sides.