How Dare They Hold Up That Sign?

mysteryman wrote:

But,I as a private citizen or a private club have the right to limit what you say or do when you are acting as part of that club.
A private organization has every right to limit what its members say or do.
That does not violate the BoR because that private group is not a govt entity.

sure, i'm not arguing with you on that. there are limitations, i've said that all along. that does NOT mean that BoR "does not apply" to individual citizens. it does. with limitations, but it does.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

The Preamble to the Constitution established an implication of American citizenship (that is, "We the people of the United States of America..."). It is "by the people, of the people, and for the people", remember? The amendments, that we now call the Bill of Rights, were amendments to that Constitution.

We are arguing in circles here.
I do not deny what the Constitution says,but you cant seem to understand that a private group that is NOT a govt entity, can set its own rules of conduct.
Those rules may limit speech, actions, or other conduct by members of that group, as long as they are acting as agents or reps of that group.

In other words, if you belong to a widget collectors club, then while you are representing that club at a widget convention, you are bound by the rules of that club.
When you are not representing that club, you are free to do what you want to (as long as you dont violate the law)
Every private club has rules of conduct, if you dont want to abide by those rules dont join the club.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

But,I as a private citizen or a private club have the right to limit what you say or do when you are acting as part of that club.
A private organization has every right to limit what its members say or do.
That does not violate the BoR because that private group is not a govt entity.

sure, i'm not arguing with you on that. there are limitations, i've said that all along. that does NOT mean that BoR "does not apply" to individual citizens. it does. with limitations, but it does.

My last post crossed yours.
I have never said that the BoR "does not apply" to private citizens.
It absolutely does, but only in their dealings with the govt.
The BoR was written to tell the govt what it cannot do, not to limit what a private citizen does.

0 Replies

Are you that lazy MM that you can't type "Bill of Rights?" BOR = Bill O'Reilly

0 Replies

Funny how the right defends non-protected free speech depending on convenience. When John Rocker spouted off a few years back, the first thing that came out of the mouths of right-wing apologists was that John Rocker had the right of free speech.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Funny how the right defends non-protected free speech depending on convenience. When John Rocker spouted off a few years back, the first thing that came out of the mouths of right-wing apologists was that John Rocker had the right of free speech.

Dixie Chicks.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Funny how the right defends non-protected free speech depending on convenience. When John Rocker spouted off a few years back, the first thing that came out of the mouths of right-wing apologists was that John Rocker had the right of free speech.
Dixie Chicks.

Apples and oranges. If I recall correctly, Rocker was disciplined by MLB, his defacto employer, that wasn't the case with the Dixie Checks.

As well, Rockers comments were racist and homophobic not political.

0 Replies

I don't really know if private clubs have the right to limit people's words and actions in their club; I guess they do. Country clubs for years are pretty racist and otherwise intolerant of everything but white, straight, Christian (at least in name) people. Even though I am all those things; I doubt I would like to belong to those clubs even if I was rich enough to afford it. I would probably get into political fights or at least walk away in disgust if over hearing some snide comment about something along those lines.

We also don't know if the rules in the bridge club thing were written out before hand on what they can or can not say. In other words if the people who held up the sign didn't know they couldn't do that and if they did do that they would risk penalties; then it just don't seem fair they get punished for something they didn't know they would get punished for.

About the parade thing; even though it was a privately held organization; they did receive money from the State; and to me it was not fair for the parade organization to deny veterans against the war the right to be in the parade. They have served their country just as nobly as those who spout off praise for Bush and his war.

All in all I am sick and tired of these people and their intolerant ways and hope they will all soon become so out of the mainstream that they will no longer be the ones in the positions to control such things as parades. They won't if people don't continue to speak up regardless of any consequences at these 'private' clubs and organizations and public forums.

0 Replies

The country club analogy is interesting. If a club is considered essentially open to the public, they fall under some of the rules around open access that apply to other public businesses like prohibitions against racism. If the USBF is in effect a public organization with open membership policies, can they ban free speach outside of their property?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

dadpad wrote:
I have to keep reminding myself;

There are 300 million Americans. They cant all be idiots...... can they?

American Research Group, Inc.

Quote:
A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.

What kind of sense does that make? 64% of the voters think George Bush has abused his powers but only 34% of the voters think he should be impeached and removed from office. About as much sense as voting him a second term I guess. A lot of us are idiots; we have tolerated Bush even though we believe he has committed acts considered abuse of his office. Maybe its because we know if Bush is impeached; Cheney will just be there. I don't know if it is possible to impeach the both of them.

Of course, both can be impeached but it is way too late for that. Americans lost their taste for impeachment after the Clinton witch hunt. As well, the people and Congress find impeachment unsavory while we have troops in harms way in foreign lands.

0 Replies

In light of this I recall an incident my mother mentioned in passing.

She was a young woman in Greece, in a disco (remember those?) with her boyfriend, and she along with everyone else spotted a man completely intoxicated and tearing up his money. Perhaps it escaped him, or perhaps not, though he was in fact "instigating anti-government sentiment among the general populace" and implicitly declaring his distaste for the current regime. The owner got on the phone, secret service arrived, and the man was pulled by the hair and shoved in a car. Hmm...

To be sure, that government in those days was never an equivalent to that of the USA. I only mean to say that the Bush (II) administration's fondness of their new unilateralism (or "new realism" as he described it at West Point) may entail policies of the same sort. They only wish they had another four years. Shocked

0 Replies

This isn't about Bush. It's about our nation.

It's about us and our right to free expression of ideas. If the Bridge Federation was coming down just as hard on the it's members who were wearing We Support Our Troops buttons as they are on this little group, I say "Fair is fair.", but they are not.

Some bridge players got upset at the CONTENT of the sign,and sent a lot of emails as is their right, but it is they would prodded the bridge players leadership into making this mountain out of a bump a on log.

What this kind of action does is promote the feeling that we should watch what we are saying because certain people might be listening. That idea in UnAmerican, undemocratic but unfortunately not unheard of since the rise of the radical right and their authoritarian ways. (Think Ari Fleischer)

Meanwhile the New York Times helps me out.

Quote:

Joe(Is My Toe Over The Line?)Nation

0 Replies

Jon Carroll on the bridge brouhaha...

0 Replies

From the New York Times editorial posted by Joe Nation:

Quote:

As the editorial suggests, punishing the women for their entirely peaceful expression is bad publicity for the United States. Moreover the incident occurred in China, a nation that U.S. officials have been criticizing for lack of freedom for expression. Americans will again be perceived as hypocritical.

0 Replies

JoeNation, I agree with many aspects of your reply, though not entirely. The conclusion 'This is not about Bush, it is about our nation.' is a tad misleading.

You do in fact mention the ascendancy of the ultra-right, and as you are aware of, both the AEI and the War Party (composed of the neo-Wilsonians and Jacksonian unilateralists) have contributed greatly to their rise in power in the face of the new global (asymmetric) threat. Do you not agree that these groups are, in fact, concerned with our nation? Additionally, can we agree that the object of their programmes, at least in part, is a rather severe alteration of American rights and liberties?

I am inclined to think that their new grand strategy comprises a revision of both foreign and domestic policies to better suit their programme as a function of an external threat.

What do you think?

0 Replies

I think that was my point.

It is not just George.

Joe(they've come for the players of bridge, you're next, they say.)Nation

0 Replies

George, you say? That is funny.

Well, to digress from the line of debate you initiated, may I ask: how do you feel about this administration audacity on and disregard of the stability of the American nation and the international order as such?

0 Replies

I believe that private clubs (e.g., country clubs) can discriminate any way they please. Just recently, I visited a club's golf bar, which was restricted to men only.

Cyclo reminds me of Bush, who could care less what the people around the world think of him or the USA. Especially since he became a lame duck, he could care less what the citizens of the USA think. For instance, a majority want out of the war soon, and Bush gives them the finger. He gives the finger to children and others without healthcare. He is a real SOB.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I believe that private clubs (e.g., country clubs) can discriminate any way they please. Just recently, I visited a club's golf bar, which was restricted to men only.

Cyclo reminds me of Bush, who could care less what the people around the world think of him or the USA. Especially since he became a lame duck, he could care less what the citizens of the USA think. For instance, a majority want out of the war soon, and Bush gives them the finger. He gives the finger to children and others without healthcare. He is a real SOB.

Did the bar of the golf club you attended remind you of Bush? They give the finger to women who want to attend.

You'll have to display a much greater depth of critical thinking before insults levied my way have any sort of effect at all, Advocate.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I didn't intend to insult you. I was just passing on my thought.

0 Replies

How Dare They Hold Up That Sign?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know