Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

He has a permit to speak and is doing nothing illegal. He is praciticing his constitutional right of free speech in the town square. No one is being forced to stand there and listen. In fact, it appears very clearly that he is being harrassed by the girl with the dyed red hair. Your observation and reasoning skills also appear to be very biased.

For the same reasons the girl has the right to get in his face, bubby. Obviously the cop in the video recognized that the freedom of speech works both ways.

Rap

Another case of lefty bias. She has the right to harrass him by getting in his face and grabbing his personal property, but he doesn't have the right to speak.

The "hate" is all hers and yours.

Bubby she had every right to get in his face regardless of the rationalizations of his hatred. He was a hate mongering bigot, getting in his face and addressing him is a consequence of the 1st amendment.

Moreover, bubby, the video shows that there was a cop in the crowd--if the girl grabbed his personal property I find it highly unlikely that action wouldn't have been taken.

Bubby, I would recommend you review the 1st amendment and realize that free speech has nothing to do with lefty bias.

Rap

I agree. However, this is immaterial. I'm not challenging your right to repeatedly cut and paste links from the same site repeatedly. You're more than welcome to do so. I'm only offering criticism with my own free speech. That you practice free speech does not make you skilled at debate, nor is flooding the thread with right-wing blogs of dubious accuracy make your case cogent.

Do you understand?

A
R
T

I did not say he did anything illegal.


Hate speech is legal and protected. It being legal, doesn't change what it is.


Correct, which is why he chose to set up at a pride event: To disrupt. This is provocation. Do you deny it?


He came to the event to disrupt. Do you deny this?

A
R
T

Who said he doesn't have the right to speak? His activity is bigoted, not criminal. It's perfectly legal to be a bigot as long as it doesn't violate any code of ethics you've voluntarily agreed to. Does it make me a "useful idiot" to defend the right of this bigot? Reply with caution.


I don't think you grasp the context of the video. The man is harassing people at the event, and doing so in obnoxiously. Would you find this behavior acceptable for yourself?

A
R
T

was practicing her constitutional right of free speech in the town square. No one is being forced to stand there and listen.

Her non-verbal antics like grabbing for his mike and pressing her sign close to his face are not legitimate expressions of free speech.

I don't think they called for police intervention, but that doesn't signify they constituted legally protected speech. The street preacher seemed to be properly dealing with the buffoonery.

No one was forced to stand and listen.

I don't see how you can draw a reasoned conclusion on his motivation for being there.

As far as we know, he could have gone there with love in his heart and the intention of trying to save what he believed to be endangered souls.

Personally, I don't believe this, but that's due more to my innate cynicism than anything he says on the video. If you set aside the use of a loudspeaker to project his voice, he certainly wasn't acting in a way that I would consider rude...unlike the red headed simpleton and the couple of other people who respond with curses.

In any case, as you well know, whether he was being rude, or his motivation involved hatred for anyone is legally immaterial.

I'm not surprised that some in the crowd respond with antagonism to his street preaching, nor do I have a real problem with them doing so in a crude manner. Whether from love or hate, he is condemning their life-styles and there is no reason why he should not expect some sort of confrontation. I don't get the impression that he is really alarmed or offended by the response he received. He certainly didn't look to the police for intervention when his mike was being grabbed. So, he's not complaining.

Unless one subscribes to an absolute "live and let live" ethos there is bound to be some conduct, or expression of opinion that one would condemn. Whether one has the brass to do the condemnation in public and before a crowd of the people being condemned is another story.

Condemning members of the KKK is something I'm sure would be widely shared in, and those who did so while face to face with the Klansmen would probably be considered somewhat heroic by many of us. I would even venture to say that those condemning them would be expressing hatred for the Klan and it's members.

We don't hear many voices decrying condemnation of the KKK as "hate speech." I've seen some of that condemnation in person and I can assure you that (if facial expressions, tone of voice, and choice of words means anything) many voicing it were feeling real hatred.

Most of us are OK with this because we feel either that the KKK deserves hatred or that those who hate them are expressing righteous outrage.

Assuming the street preacher is expressing hatred, I wonder if you believe his thinking and motivation is drastically different from those who protest a KKK gathering?

No of course not, but if someone had pelted the street preacher with rotten eggs would you shrug it off with another "no one was forced to stand there and listen?"

And I'm sure the 'street preacher' made lots of points with the 'Xtian persecution' crowd.

Rap

Your point?

I didn't know assaulting a speaker in the public square was a constitutional right.

FA is all about "intent". The reason we have freedom of speech is because of people like FA. They're fine with freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. That's not why it was written. It was written so people like FA and other lefties on this site cannot stop speech they don't agree with. Otherwise, we all know they would because they keep trying.

You certainly have the constitutional right to be stupid enough to call that "assaulting the speaker". You, however, don't have the right to make up facts about what constitutes assault.

Assault is when she grabbed his microphone. Idiot.

I didn't know assaulting a microphone was a crime. She certainly wasn't assaulting him. And she has a perfect right to express her opinion as well. And she did. Too bad she didn't have a PA system with her, which would have equalized things a bit.

Fail