Al Franken - Defender of the Freedom of Speech

[MiniMag84]

Yeah, I see what you mean Cphil.

[Albinonewt]

Yeah P8ntball, I think both your groups of links are false, especially the one about Fraken. He has recounted the story numereous times to real news sources and nothing he's said is anywhere near that story.

As for the Novak incident, i doubt it could happen without it hitting any mainstream media. It certainly isn't impossible and if it's true I would expect he should stand trial for assault, but I doubt it. I've actually gotten to meet Robert Novak once and unlike AL Fraken he's a very level headed and cool guy. Fraken is a lot of things, but stable is not one of them.

[MiniMag84]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Yeah P8ntball, I think both your groups of links are false, especially the one about Fraken. He has recounted the story numereous times to real news sources and nothing he's said is anywhere near that story.

As for the Novak incident, i doubt it could happen without it hitting any mainstream media. It certainly isn't impossible and if it's true I would expect he should stand trial for assault, but I doubt it. I've actually gotten to meet Robert Novak once and unlike AL Fraken he's a very level headed and cool guy. Fraken is a lot of things, but stable is not one of them.

When you say he isn't stable all I can think of it Stuart Smalley.

[EsPo]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Yeah P8ntball, I think both your groups of links are false, especially the one about Fraken. He has recounted the story numereous times to real news sources and nothing he's said is anywhere near that story.

As for the Novak incident, i doubt it could happen without it hitting any mainstream media. It certainly isn't impossible and if it's true I would expect he should stand trial for assault, but I doubt it. I've actually gotten to meet Robert Novak once and unlike AL Fraken he's a very level headed and cool guy. Fraken is a lot of things, but stable is not one of them.

If you've never met Al Franken, how do you know that he's not stable?

NY Post is owned by Fox, I'd never take anything they say seriously.

[Rebel46_99]

Originally posted by EsPo


NY Post is owned by Fox, I'd never take anything they say seriously.

And I suppose if it came from CNN or any other "News" source it would be Gospel???

We've been down this road before, several times as a matter of fact, about the reliability of "News" sources and it always ends up getting ugly. Just ask the now defunct CB....

DW

[Rebel46_99]

Originally posted by EsPo


NY Post is owned by Fox, I'd never take anything they say seriously.

And I suppose if it came from CNN or any other "News" source it would be Gospel???

We've been down this road before, several times as a matter of fact, about the reliability of "News" sources and it always ends up getting ugly. Just ask the now defunct CB....

DW

[1stdeadeye]

Man I need to get to a Dean rally soon that Al will attend! Love to see him try it on me! He would not get off with just a pair of broken glasses!

I seriously loathe him! He is such a hypocrit!

[spantol]

How so?

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
I seriously loathe him! He is such a hypocrit!

[impostal22]

Originally posted by spantol
How so?

let's see..

cuz he argued he was defending the right to free speech by eliminating someone else's right to free speech. in other words, he was silencing those HE did not want to hear, so he could hear those HE wanted to hear.

[spantol]

Ah, good, two people that didn't read the rest of the thread.

Shartley had a great response to that claim on the first page. I'll quote it for you here, 'cos you seemed to miss it the first time:

It is not hypocritical to support FOS on one hand and then to attack a heckler on the other. They are different issues. And both disruptive and disorderly conduct AND assault are AGAINST THE LAW? and both can land you in jail. In short, hecklers are NOT exercising their right of ?Freedom of Speech?? nor are those who attack them trying to deprive them of it.

FOS was never intended (nor DOES it) to give people the ?right? to say anything they want, any place they want, and as long as they want to say it. As I have stated, there are MANY cases that clearly show that FOS is not what far too many would like to think it is.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue at all.

Originally posted by impostal22


let's see..

cuz he argued he was defending the right to free speech by eliminating someone else's right to free speech. in other words, he was silencing those HE did not want to hear, so he could hear those HE wanted to hear.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by spantol
Ah, good, two people that didn't read the rest of the thread.

Shartley had a great response to that claim on the first page. I'll quote it for you here, 'cos you seemed to miss it the first time:



This isn't a freedom of speech issue at all.

actually i did read it. i didn't necessarily agree with it, either. one person's perception of what is and what isn't a freedom of speech issue really doesn't mean anything, soooo why bother arguing it? one court could uphold it as a freedom of speech issue while one says the complete opposite. the point is that al franken didn't have any right doing what he did. especially considering his defense:

"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."

he "shouted down" the heckler by taking him down. so in essence, he's a hypocrite.

EVEN if it isn't a freedom of speech issue, the assailant involved claims his motive was to defend the freedom of speech, meaning HE IS A HYPOCRITE IN HIS ACTIONS!!!

[shartley]

Originally posted by impostal22
actually i did read it. i didn't necessarily agree with it, either. one person's perception of what is and what isn't a freedom of speech issue really doesn't mean anything, soooo why bother arguing it? one court could uphold it as a freedom of speech issue while one says the complete opposite. the point is that al franken didn't have any right doing what he did. especially considering his defense:

"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."

he "shouted down" the heckler by taking him down. so in essence, he's a hypocrite.

EVEN if it isn't a freedom of speech issue, the assailant involved claims his motive was to defend the freedom of speech, meaning HE IS A HYPOCRITE IN HIS ACTIONS!!!

[impostal22]

Originally posted by shartley

yes, BUT...laws are created upon individuals' perceptions of the constitution. further, the constitutionality of laws are created upon the supreme court's justices' perception of the constitution. the whole point of our legal system is that it is up to interpretation. that's why one court could declare something completely unconstitutional whilst another says that it's constitutional.

oh and about the constitution....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."

notice how it has absolutely no relevance? this is where the difference between civil liberties and civil rights comes in. each and every person is born with certain unalienable rights...these are known as civil liberties. one such civil liberty is the ability to speak for what you believe in without being tackled by some idiot. there will always be hecklers, because not everyone follows the same beliefs. hecklers have just as much right to speak out for what they believe as the politicians they are shouting down.

if, however, the heckler is making it impossible for the politician to speak at all, the solution isn't to frigging tackle him. i agree that hecklers who do this should really be shut up somehow, but not like that.

this is where i remind myself people are mostly ****heads, and shut up. *shuts up*

[shartley]

Originally posted by impostal22
yes, BUT...laws are created upon individuals' perceptions of the constitution. further, the constitutionality of laws are created upon the supreme court's justices' perception of the constitution. the whole point of our legal system is that it is up to interpretation. that's why one court could declare something completely unconstitutional whilst another says that it's constitutional.

This is true. However it is not a fair blanket statement about laws and/or the Constitution. And just because some people may interpret the laws or Amendments one way or the other does not mean their interpretation is legal or correct.

Originally posted by impostal22
oh and about the constitution....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."

notice how it has absolutely no relevance? this is where the difference between civil liberties and civil rights comes in. each and every person is born with certain unalienable rights...these are known as civil liberties. one such civil liberty is the ability to speak for what you believe in without being tackled by some idiot. there will always be hecklers, because not everyone follows the same beliefs. hecklers have just as much right to speak out for what they believe as the politicians they are shouting down.

Originally posted by impostal22
if, however, the heckler is making it impossible for the politician to speak at all, the solution isn't to frigging tackle him. i agree that hecklers who do this should really be shut up somehow, but not like that.

Originally posted by impostal22
this is where i remind myself people are mostly ****heads, and shut up. *shuts up*

[Chojin Man]

"I'm good enough. I'm smart enough, and gosh darnet people like me!"-Stuart Smalley