Man arrested at 9/11 memorial for speaking out. Follow

The guy who was shouting back at the guy arrested had no class or tact for that matter. As for respect of those that died, you're naive if think that just because someone doesn't buy the official 9/11 story that it somehow shows they have no respect for the dead. I speak from experience when I say the truth matters on how our loved ones or friends are lost. It doesn't dishonor their memories if the attack was an inside job. If anything, the truthers want to honor these people further by risking personal attacks and bigotry to push the truth.

A good example is how the military is known for misleading the public and family about how their loved ones died in combat. I'd rather know the truth than be given a propaganda story so I could lay them to rest. I have many friends who died during the Iraqi war invasion. As a supervisor, it sucked to have to write letters to the families and explain why their loved ones perished when it could of been their own fault. That fine line of integrity was always my guide and I never faulted no matter how rough it was to write a letter. I'm sorry my friend, but you got it wrong. A person who goes all out for the truth for honorable reasons has more class and respect than those that don't.

You have any evidence this particular truther isn't lying about what really happened?

It amuses me that you would talk at all about being mature in any fashion, as I have yet to see any kind of reply to any post where you don't insult who you are replying to. Even if they don't insult you or anything, you always come back with **** like "You obviously aren't smart enough to understand" or "bet you didn't go to college" and other ****. You've never actually backed up anything you've ever said with...well anything outside of "It's obvious" (and you're lucky Gbaji hasn't sued you) and "you wouldn't understand so I'm not going to bother explaining it."

Okay, so by your own words you believe he was arrested because he was creating a disturbance (Which is described as "When a person's words or conduct jeopardizes others right to peace and tranquility, he or she may be charged with disturbing the peace." Also "However, if a person's non-violent actions are likely to incite violence or public disorder, criminal liability may apply." Which, in NYC it is possible his actions could have gotten his own *** kicked.) and it had nothing to do with 9/11. He was held for what appears one day, when the normal sentence for this would be up to 90 days and a possible $400 fine.

What I'm failing to see is this huge "miscarriage of justice" you were talking about on the last page.

I hate to break it to you, but that's pretty much the point of the Asylum, bud.

Freedom of Speech doesn't rescind disturbing the peace charges.

"While debate continues over when and where speech is free, and the limitations on those freedoms, the First Amendment protection remains a critical guiding principal for Americans. With Cohen v. California, the Supreme Court seemed to reinforce that speech, even when it is distasteful, crass, unimaginative, or even ugly, is an inalienable right."

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/life-lisa/2011/jun/7/june-7-anniversary-supreme-court-ruling-free-speec/

Freedom of speech supersedes a disturbing the peace charge as noted above. It all goes back to why there is freedom of speech in the first place. After all, there was never a need to censor popular speech. It goes to reason that unpopular speech like protesting wrongs in our country that others might disagree with would apply. What better example than the civil rights movement with MLK. You want to talk about a disruptive person to the status quo, MLK's movement was the greatest disturbance of the peace in the last 150 years. However, the freedom of speech amendment was law and all those petty charges were rescinded against MLK.

Given that this was exactly the take on this in the second video you linked, you'll have to forgive me for assuming that you are selectively applying the concept of freedom of speech.



Yes. As they should. If they believe he's specifically and deliberately "causing trouble", then they should step in. I'll repeat my statement that freedom of speech doesn't mean that you get to make someone else pay for your microphone Any event (even a public one) has a purpose and a cost. The people attending are there for a given reason. Regardless of what we think of those reasons, they also have a right to attend and participate without undue disruption. They "paid" for the event. A troublemaker is basically taking more than his fair share. Everyone else is being polite and respectful while he's shouting and making a scene. I don't really care why he's doing it, but if he's causing a disruption, he can be arrested.

He's perfectly free to make that same speech on a normal public street at any time. But he's *not* free to do so inside an organized event. When he does so, he's using a microphone he didn't pay for.




Who did this? I think that most of the posters here have gone out of their way to avoid taking the bait and turning this into a debate about whether there was some conspiracy around 9/11. I may have missed a post or two, but the overwhelming response here has been that he was treated the same as anyone else screaming at people in the middle of an event would be and that it wasn't what he was saying, but how he was saying it that got him in trouble. Several people have further mentioned that if the police did over react that he had plenty of legal options available to him.

You seem to be the only person making a case about him based on what he was trying to say.




So should you. Would you have raised the same argument if this guy had been shouting something different? Would you even have heard about him? How many other people do you think were arrested that day for unruly/disruptive behavior? I just can't get past the assumption present in your post that this guy was singled out somehow for his views. I know you claim repeatedly that you aren't doing that, but it kinda rings hollow given the selective nature of the case you randomly choose to highlight as an infringement of free speech.


What's funny is that I fully accept the idea that groups of people can and should focus most on defending speech that they care about. It's normal and natural in fact. It's your kind of obvious attempt to pretend that this isn't what you're doing that I find a bit dishonest.

I just don't condone the idea of these people going to the memorials and making a huge scene. I've seen videos where these people will actually harass the families of the victims. Their claims don't have any scientific foundation, and yet they still won't shut up. I put them right up there with Holocaust deniers and the Westboro Baptist Church. All these people need to stop existing, or learn to do real research. Also, bigotry has nothing to do with it. If they truly want to respect the dead, they would put together a viable argument, and publish it, not go yelling through a bullhorn trying to force their ideas down everyone's throats.

No it doesn't, and that's not what the court ruled on. The question was a matter of whether the use of a vulgar word changed the speech from free to not free. The issue of whether a political opinion written on a shirt was legitimate free speech was not in question, just whether that included using profanity on the shirt.

The difference is that I may choose not to look at or read someone's shirt. Or, upon reading it once, I can choose to ignore it and it doesn't bother me. This is not the same if someone is shouting those same words repeatedly at an event I'm attending. That action is forcing me to choose to either put up with hearing the speech or leaving the event. Thus, spoken (shouted in this case) speech can be infringed when it occurs in an area in which some other activity not related to the speech in question is going on.

If I go to a concert at the park, the fact that it's a public park doesn't mean that the guy shouting profanities next to me can't be removed for disturbing the reason the rest of us are there.


The case in the OP is no different. As I've said a few times now, he doesn't own the microphone of that event. Now, if he and a bunch of truthers want to create an event, get a permit, block out a section of the city dedicated to people speaking about their positions on that issue, then they can eject people who show up and shout at them as well. That's what I mean by "owning the microphone".

No. You're using the fact that he was arrested just as anyone else would have for doing what he was doing as a platform to proclaim those who believe as you do as victims being singled out for discrimination. You get that every other person on this forum see this, right? It's pretty darn obvious.



But you don't start threads about how their right to free speech is being infringed if/when one of them is arrested for doing exactly what this guy was doing. Which is my point.



/shrug

I call em like I see em. While I suppose it's possible that you're just an altruistic person who happened upon this violation of rights and choose to start a post about it. But I'm going to go with the odds which say that you agree with the opinion of the guy in question and are hyping his arrest as as means to draw attention to said opinion and even to suggest that said opinion has more weight because the police are trying to prevent the rest of us from hearing it.


Let me clue you in. The reason very few people agree with the truther theories isn't because they haven't heard them. So yelling louder isn't going to accomplish anything.