14 Likes
It just amazes me that this makes it past people’s smell test. Some of the same people who were defending Coulter’s right to “free speech” (as interpreted as her right to be paid by a private entity to give a speech to a particular assembled group of people in a particular place) can say, “Well, Fairooz broke the rules so them’s the breaks.”
The first amendment grants freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom to petition governments to address grievances. The law always cares more about the specific than the general, so the most important part of the first amendment is that last part - the freedom to petition government.
Freedom of speech has been interpreted in America as meaning that governments can’t regulate election spending. It’s been interpreted as saying that Hobby Lobby didn’t have to pay a tax because they didn’t like what that tax was being spent on. Freedom of speech has been seen to trump the most fundamental powers of government.
The idea that the most specific part of the first amendment is overridden by the desperate importance of removing someone who laughed is absolutely unfathomable.
If you are defending the very broad principle that people ought to be able to speak their minds in the case of Coulter, and that the government has to give you whatever licence plate you want in the “ASSIMIL8” case, but you are not willing to defend the extremely narrow principle that he government ought not arrest people for expressing displeasure with the government in this case, then you simply don’t give two fucks about the first amendment (or the general human right to free expression for those of us outside the US), it’s just a thin veneer over a worship of power.
21 Likes
Slightly off topic, but does this have a name? Substituting actual argument for “google it”?
I think I’ll call this a “Google gallop”
Edited for context.
13 Likes
I think of it as LYGTFM.
8 Likes
What is it with the bootlicker class? Ignoring the finer points of the law cited in this case and the specifics of this woman’s actions, don’t you see a difference between:
- The law clearly states X, so it appears Y was in violation, and
- Take that, fucker! That’s what you get for stepping out of line!
Hold on to your hats, conservatives: I don’t want anyone to go to jail for nonviolently (and briefly!) disrupting a meeting, whether through a single scoffing laugh or by arguing with a cop for dragging them away. Kick out an unruly, disruptive person? That sounds reasonable. Fine them? Maybe. Depends. But this? This is nuts. Is this really the America you want to live in?
9 Likes
And then departing post haste!
13 Likes
A Senate hearing is akin to a court hearing. In a Court of Law an outburst like this a judge would have charged her with Contempt of Court.
It wasn’t who she was that got her in trouble, it was the lack of respect for the proceeding.
She laughed at a Senate HEARING. It wasn’t a speech, forum or panel. This is akin to being in a Court of Law. Try laughing during a court proceeding and see how quickly the judge reacts. Ever heard of Contempt of Court?
What would a secure border look like and how would it function?
7 Likes
The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a federal republic
It’s a constitutional republic, and a synonym for “republic” is “representative democracy.”
10 Likes
The same way any african-american gets jail time for daring to question authority in most any situation since there were african-americans.
We still gotta laugh tho. How’s the old saying go?
"First they came for those guys, hahaha and wow that was fucked up!
Then they came for the other ones and I thought sure as shit glad that ain’t me, Dayum hahaha!
Then they came for me and I was all, like, HAHAHA GUYS QUIT IT PHHTHH YER KILLIN ME I’M DYIN OVER HERES!"
5 Likes
The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
A republic is:
- a sovereign state
- whose ultimate power rests in its citizens entitled to vote
- who (directly or indirectly) elect representatives to wield that power.
A democracy is:
- a form of government, whose power rests equally in its citizens,
- who (directly or indirectly) elect representatives to wield that power.
Absent qualification, not all citizens in a ‘republic’ are necessarily entitled to vote, and absent qualification, a ‘democracy’ is not necessarily sovereign.
As both, a “democratic republic” is ideally:
- a sovereign state,
- whose ultimate power rests in its citizens, equally entitled to vote,
- who (directly or indirectly) elect representatives to wield that power.
So, since the U.S. is a sovereign state, the only thing that separates the two is the question of suffrage - is everyone entitled to vote?
Well, obviously they’re not, as non-citizens, minors, and, in some states, citizens with criminal records, are not allowed to vote. So, if you want to be pedantic, yes, you’re right, the U.S. is not a democracy.
However, given that the U.S. considers everyone born within its borders to be a citizen, and every citizen over the age of 18 (theoretically) is allowed to vote unless a criminal conviction causes them to forfeit that right, I’d say that it’s a distinction without a difference.
And, specifically in this case, since Ms. Fairooz presumably has the right to vote, I don’t see what that distinction has to do with @Ignatius’s point: That citizens not having the ability to laugh at those in power undermines the integrity of that system and the ability to elect representatives to wield power on their behalf (a concept common to both systems).
13 Likes
This isn’t a fedora. It is a trilby.
Well, when you put it that way, maybe 5–10 years would be more appropriate. A hearing! I declare!
16 Likes
I suspect that the judge and defense attorney(s) probably do have a good grasp of the law. If not, there is always the possibility of appeal.
I sort of see your argument as being that those responsible for security in the Senate would themselves be guilty of disrupting the proceedings if they are to ever expel a person from the room.
I think it is important to understand that there are times when disruption is going to be illegal. The other two defendants were acquitted of disorderly conduct, because their disruption happened before the Senate was gaveled into session. Ladyvinia made the comparison with a courtroom, which is a good one. We all know that during a court session, the audience is there for transparency of government, not to participate in the trial by heckling or shouting suggestions.
That does not change even though you decide to label your heckling as “protest”, or if you feel very strongly about the trial or hearing in process.
People laugh in courts, believe it or not. And if someone makes a noise in court that’s not appropriate then the judge will tell them to be quiet, not ask for them to be removed, and not slam them with a contempt of court charge (unless the noise is obviously made in contempt).
Also, contempt of court is an administrative power of judges, not a charge, so it doesn’t interact with the first amendment in the same way. If a judge says, “Contempt of court, $200 fine” you don’t go to court and have a jury judge you, you have to pay $200.
You are saying it’s like contempt of court, but I don’t think you know how contempt of court operates, how actual judges behave in actual courtrooms, what the relevant similarities and differences between between a senate hearing and a court are. I’m not going to tell you I fully understand them, but simply saying, “It’s like contempt of court, therefore it’s fine for her to be arrested (which doesn’t happen in contempt of court) and given a trial (which doesn’t happen in contempt of court) and the first amendment is automatically overridden (which is completely different since the first amendment is specifically there to allow expression of displeasure with elected officials)” makes no sense.
I’m not sure where you are repeating this from. Anyone who says this doesn’t know what any of the words they are using mean. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive, and there isn’t even really one authoritative definition of either. Look up the definitions of both words on wikipedia, in Meriam Webster, in OED and on dictionary.com and you’ll find they are very nearly synonymous and that both apply to the United States of America.
I’m not saying they are guilty of doing so, that would sort of imply they should be charged with doing so. I’m saying that while they are in the process of doing so, the proceedings are already disrupted and you can’t really say someone is disrupting them.
But it isn’t a good comparison. The whole point of the first amendment is that you can protest your government. The same rationale doesn’t apply to heckling a court. Expulsion is okay because it may be necessary to continue with the function of government. Like I said, the first amendment has been shown to overrule pretty nearly everything in American law. That it wouldn’t be applied in this case is incredible.
As for the application of the law and the knowledge of the law by the prosecutor and the judge, I’d like to point out that if other two defendants were acquitted, the charges were not dropped. So the prosecutor is either unaware of the law or willing to pursue and obviously bogus charge. I’m not sure the judge’s opinion on the matter is even relevant - the jury decided guilty, and as for her defense attorney, they in fact were arguing she was exercising her first amendment rights.
I think analysis suggesting that the US governement can put one of its citizens in prison for a year for laughing is at best overly-legalistic rationalization of displeasure about what was being laughed at. I can’t even dream up an imaginary set of circumstances where it that is a proportional or just outcome.
But when a university decides they don’t want a certain speaker, we see outrage on these forums about the first amendment though that was obviously technically legal. When someone living in another country doesn’t get the licence plate they want we see outrage about the lack of freedom of speech though that was obviously technically legal. Even if this is a technically correct application of the law, where is the outrage?
Or is everyone just too worried that Jeff Sessions will have them thrown in prison for disagreeing with him?
13 Likes
Cool. I also found this obscure reference, which, on the surface, would seem to take legal precedent over Rule 15:
“Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
9 Likes
Everyone keeps trying to circle back to the claim that she was convicted of laughing. Code Pink’s representatives are making that claim, but interviews with the jury indicate that such is not the case.
The officer who decided to eject her may well have overreacted. The rules for what constitutes ejectable behavior are pretty broad, so it is pretty unlikely that that alone constitutes an offense against her rights.
I never mentioned the term[quote=“Humbabella, post:121, topic:100366”]
contempt of court
[/quote]
If you start doing anything disruptive in court, you will be asked to leave or ejected. I suppose if you escalate, it could become contempt of court.
I do sort of get the idea that many here believe that labeling one’s actions as “protected protest” gives you special rights to do things that would otherwise be illegal or , as in this case, subject to ejection.
Are you deliberately conflating “ejectable behavior” with “jailable offense” or is that happening by accident?
11 Likes
