Comments
pizzapantifa t1_j4ry0up wrote
> Political recruitment in a public space seems like a fine expression of speech
The fact that this comment has 16 upvotes right now (and I assume more later) is sad.
Vying for the co-opting of public spaces for solicitation is such a dystopian self-destructive perspective. I suppose if you're sincere you believe you're advocating for freedom when really you're only advocating for organizations' ability to pump money into solicitation in yet another space of our lives. Ads, billboards, mailers, robocalls, door-to-door solicitation and you now want to make it so I can't go to the park without having to solve a human captcha to gain access because they set up a checkpoint to intercept all inbound foot traffic.
Mine and countless others' exhaustion at the constant hurdles we have to clear for a sliver of comfort is valid. I assume I'll be considered unamerican for not just baselessly supporting this because you called it "free speech" so I'll accept that title.
I suppose I am unamerican. I support humanity and its wellbeing above this autofellating constitutionalist puritanical bullshit virtue signalling and slippery-slope moral panic nonsense. Do we not deserve at least one public sanctuary from the psychological warfare corporations and political organizations violently thrust in our faces if we participate in society? I think we can set up small concessions to protect the individuals' wellbeing without becoming Orwell's 1984 - or are we already living in 1984? Nobody around me seems to be able to make up their mind.
Zenith2017 t1_j4s0pi7 wrote
I'm not speaking in support of their use of the park. I'm saying that it's protected by the first amendment, so far as I know. The government can't stop you from displaying most political speech, even if the speech sucks.
And I gotta say, this dystopian "human captcha checkpoint" thing seems pretty unlikely. I think a dystopia would probably start with the government censoring political speech, don't you?
Edit added "captcha"
BluCurry8 t1_j4t9x6q wrote
When does political speech just become plain old harassment or terrorizing other people. Clearly we need some boundaries!
Zenith2017 t1_j4tkp7m wrote
I agree
pizzapantifa t1_j4s9z1z wrote
> displaying
solicitation isn't display.
>And I gotta say, this dystopian "human captcha checkpoint" thing seems pretty unlikely.
Seems then that your perception of a dystopia is likely rather cartoonish.
>asking passersby to sign nomination petitions
"Asking passersby" also means engaging with people not asking to be engaged with. "to sign nomination petitions" is solicitation.
>I think a dystopia would probably start with the government censoring political speech, don't you?
I think a dystopia is when the majority of a population consistently fights for others' rights to make life more unpleasant for everyone under the guise of freedom while propping their virtue signals up on a nearly 300 year old document.
Oh no, I can't harass people in a park? I suppose I can only run T.V. and radio ads, e-mail people, pay for adspace on youtube and facebook, put up billboards that block large swaths of beautiful landscape, send mailers, use huge marquees, litter roadsides with stupid little signs, knock on their door, and call their phone. I'm being oppressed.
Zenith2017 t1_j4sc2er wrote
Well then vote for an amendment to the 1A. I don't know what else to tell you dude. What they're doing is legal today, and you haven't made any points to prove otherwise
And honestly it's telling that you're mad at me instead of doing something that would actually change anything. Rant at me all you want, I do not control the first amendment
pizzapantifa t1_j4t1lys wrote
> Well then vote for an amendment to the 1A
lol
>What they're doing is legal today, and you haven't made any points to prove otherwise
I wasn't trying to prove it was illegal. I was criticizing the soft justification of encroaching on others space in public. I don't want it to be required nor do I find it reasonable to expect everyone to accept that they should have to tell people to "piss off" (as someone else put it) simply to gain access to a public space.
I don't really care if people refuse to see the validity in peoples' autonomy in public spaces nor do I care if people dismiss the term "harassment" as hyperbole. There is little difference between a nuisance call and this behavior (mind you many would find it more intimidating to have a stranger approach them in public than a strange number on their phone but you'd be hard pressed to find people who would defend robo callers behind the 1st amendment.)
>And honestly it's telling that you're mad at me
I wouldn't say mad and I wouldn't consider it at you specifically but, in general, my compatriots who hide behind "freedom" and worship the constitution like a cult to shrug away problems and elude to laws that protect negative behaviors do vex me, yes.
>instead of doing something that would actually change anything
I'm currently engaged in a discourse with you, I suppose this is you admitting that you refuse to listen to anything that you don't want to agree with and that's fine. You may believe there's no point in trying to convince others that we should be working towards curbing the constant toxic dumping of ads and subliminal messaging into every facet of our lives but you also have no idea what I do with my time and I find it a bit comedic you fancy yourself the authority on the validity of peoples' actions/activism.
>Rant at me all you want, I do not control the first amendment
Feel free to dismiss this as ranting but that's dishonest. You control your indifference at the first amendment's use to harass people in recreational spaces. You're a problem regardless of whether you choose to accept that or not and I'll continue to advocate for people to hold the well-being of individuals (regardless of their sensitivities) above the ability of organizations and corporations to co-opt what should be havens from their already gargantuan onslaught of rather obvious and intrusive psy-ops. (Yes, psy-ops. These groups employ psychologists expressly for the purpose of finding the most efficient manner to manipulate you and this has been going on for decades.)
Also continue to feel free to shrug your shoulders and say "Welp that's free speech!" But since my single vote means essentially nothing, I'll continue to use my voice, the one tool I do have, to bring others attention towards their lazy acceptance of this garbage and how it is what enabled the slow creep of constant time-vacuuming and devaluation of peoples' time and autonomy in the first place.
Sure my communications are likely fruitless here (as this exchange has exemplified) but if I can convince even a handful of others to spread awareness of how abused we are and how this is not how life has to be, maybe slowly I can convince my friends, neighbors and acquaintances to work towards piling our pathetically devalued votes together to affect change in this matter.
I don't think you sincerely value voting and if you meant what you said then your perception of the democratic process is tremendously naive.
Why is trying to convince others to work with me not valid? It's valid to interrupt peoples' daily rituals in a public recreational space with a clipboard because it's protected by the first amendment but it's invalid to communicate on a forum where I'm not intruding on anyone's physical being? Why is it invalid to discuss how problematic it is to consider ancient documents unquestionable authority when they were written by teenagers who wiped their asses with corncobs and legally considered other humans property?
Zenith2017 t1_j4tkwet wrote
Wow, that's a lotta words. Too bad I'm not reading em 😎😎😎😎😎
Super_C_Complex t1_j4tskpb wrote
Same. It's like someone opened a thesaurus while mad at the door for not being a window.
Zenith2017 t1_j4v6mc3 wrote
Right? I told them three times I'm only saying that it is legal (most likely anyway), and not that I want it to be legal. Literal plugging ears and screaming lalalala
pizzapantifa t1_j4ttsmx wrote
How would you know if you didn't read it?
Super_C_Complex t1_j4tu3yv wrote
> You're a problem regardless of whether you choose to accept that or not and I'll continue to advocate for people to hold the well-being of individuals (regardless of their sensitivities) above the ability of organizations and corporations to co-opt what should be havens from their already gargantuan onslaught of rather obvious and intrusive psy-ops. (Yes, psy-ops. These groups employ psychologists expressly for the purpose of finding the most efficient manner to manipulate you and this has been going on for decades.)
I read that
pizzapantifa t1_j4tu7vg wrote
>Too bad I'm not reading em
🤔
>Same
Let me put down the thesaurus to find you a dictionary.
NotNowDamo t1_j4ul04e wrote
This guy is trying to be morally superior to you while defending an immoral position (limiting freedom of expression is immoral, even when we disagree with the message being expressed).
Zenith2017 t1_j4v4saz wrote
They brought up a ton of stuff I never said or implied that they're just assuming about me because I disagreed lol. Like "why is it invalid to try to convince others to work with me", the worshipping the constitution bit, implying that I even want people to do this canvassing in parks thing.
I didn't bother to do more than skim because it became obvious they didn't listen to what I said
pizzapantifa t1_j4ttbso wrote
I expected nothing more.
Zenith2017 t1_j4v587e wrote
Well, you said a bunch of shit that I didn't say. I never said it's invalid to discuss the constitution for example, you just assumed I think that. So I'm not really feeling like your thesaurus rant deserves a real reply
How old are you
pizzapantifa t1_j4v7mki wrote
I suppose it is much easier to dodge this and resort to insulting me than it is to support what you did say and address my criticisms.
I'm old enough to laugh at your repeated deflections.
Shouldn't you be doing something that would actually change anything instead of engaging with "thesaurus rants"? (Sorry, I'll avoid trisylla- words that make more than 2 sounds.)
Zenith2017 t1_j4v95un wrote
Engaging with thesaurus rants makes me giggle
pizzapantifa t1_j4x500o wrote
"I'm not gonna read that!"
"engaging with thesaurus rants makes me giggle."
🥱 thread muted. Learn to read and focus on peoples' communications instead of bIg WoRd MAkE Me MaD
[deleted] t1_j4sfrdc wrote
[deleted]
BluCurry8 t1_j4tapjo wrote
Yes it is when it is unwanted.
[deleted] t1_j4ticgr wrote
[deleted]
NotNowDamo t1_j4ul525 wrote
So posters, billboards, music from a passing car?
BluCurry8 t1_j4uzf5h wrote
Approaching people to solicit their private data is an unwanted activity. I guess you are referring to advertising on devices that you choose to give your attention. Billboards are a blight on society.
NotNowDamo t1_j4v62sh wrote
>I guess you are referring to advertising on devices that you choose to give your attention.
I am not sure how you think that since that wasn't mentioned.
But at this point, further dialog with you is obviously just a means for you to burn down strawmen.
NotNowDamo t1_j4ukthn wrote
>. I support humanity and its wellbeing above this autofellating constitutionalist puritanical bullshit virtue signalling and slippery-slope moral panic nonsense.
Lol. Sure bud.
pizzapantifa t1_j4uwkau wrote
wow you told me. 🙄
NotNowDamo t1_j4v5o7a wrote
I guess you'd be more impressed if I typed out 12 rambling paragraphs of bullshit.
pizzapantifa t1_j4v6pm2 wrote
🥱
Unique-Public-8594 t1_j4qmkns wrote
“Talking politics” is not what this is about. It’s about political activity / collecting signatures. Approaching people to push a one-sided agenda?
FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression a nonpartisan nonprofit whose mission is protecting freedom of speech)
eviljelloman t1_j4qzzzp wrote
>Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression a nonpartisan nonprofit whose mission is protecting freedom of speech
lol. They are funded by ultra conservatives and libertarians. They are about as nonpartisan as Fox is "fair and balanced".
Terrible_Use7872 t1_j4que1x wrote
Either way, isn't that what right to free speech is all about?
mkinn01 t1_j4qwj7h wrote
Yes it is a right and of course someone out there has a one sided opinion it’s their view. It is the individual’s right to listen to whom ever they want. You can not ban free speech because you don’t agree with the message.
sewerrpunk t1_j4rbymd wrote
> You can not ban free speech because you don’t agree with the message.
Where did the article say anything about their message or anyones' views on it?
BluCurry8 t1_j4tb865 wrote
No it is not. Freedom of speech is about government control or suppression in all forms. If you are in a public park it has rules. It is open at certain times, you cannot litter or dump trash or solicit, which is really what this group is doing.
[deleted] t1_j4qyoeo wrote
[deleted]
SendAstronomy t1_j4t80hz wrote
Just from their name I can tell they are partisan.
Edit: they fund Turning Point USA's college arm, so yeah, buncha assholes.
Not saying they are or are not wrong in this case. Just pointing out they are a right wing org.
Unique-Public-8594 t1_j4t9wi6 wrote
Interesting that Wikipedia has it wrong then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_and_Expression
I get that they are crowd sourced, still, weird.
PoppinFresh420 t1_j4tdvts wrote
Nothing on that page disagrees with what sendastronomy said.
Unique-Public-8594 t1_j4vu6bo wrote
I was reading the typicall collapsed section that includes this statement:
“ The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education was co-founded by Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate in 1999, who were FIRE's co-directors until 2004.[1] Kors and Silverglate had co-authored a 1998 book opposing censorship at colleges.[2][5] Silverglate had served on the board of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts.[1] Kors served as FIRE's first president and chairperson. Its first executive director and, later, CEO, was Thor Halvorssen.[6] It was founded to be non-ideological and nonpartisan.[1]”
Illustrious_Air_1438 t1_j525kpf wrote
How are they a right wing organization? They sued Florida for the "stop woke act," advocated for a student whose school denied recognition for his club because it supported universal healthcare, and advocated for a Stanford student whose diploma was put on hold after he satirized the Federalist society and Republicans.
BluCurry8 t1_j4tax3e wrote
Yeah. The way to protect free speech is in court. Not collecting persons private data in a park.
libananahammock t1_j4quzgn wrote
Its major grants come from the ultra-conservative Earhart, John Templeton, and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundations; the Scaife family foundations; the Koch-linked Donors Trust, and funders that sustain a myriad of conservative campus-targeting organizations that include FIRE, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the David Horowitz Freedom Center (whose "Academic Bill of Rights" would mandate more hiring of conservative faculty and would monitor professors' syllabi for "balance") and Campus Watch (which tracks and condemns liberal professors' comments on the Middle East).
All of these organizations stoke public anger against "political correctness" as a threat to academic freedom and to the free-market economy, which they insist would enhance it. Never mind that, as FIRE keeps discovering-but never invites us to ponder-the college trustees and deans whom it condemns rightly enough for restricting speech are serving not politically correct pieties, but market pressures to satisfy student "customers" and avoid negative publicity, liability, and losses in "brand" or "market share."
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4qzhdk wrote
Who cares who funded them when they are defending a sound principle? Your post is a perfect example ‘people I don’t like are in favor of it therefore I’m against it’.
BluCurry8 t1_j4tcle7 wrote
So critical think is not your strong suit. There is an agenda and this is not a case where the government is limiting the groups ability to perform free speech. This group is soliciting. For as much as we talk about freedom of speech it is well past time people learn more about what is means.
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4thqb8 wrote
They are not soliciting. They are campaigning to gain access to the ballot. It is very much political speech that is protected by 1st amendment. Political speech is the most protected type of speech and gaining access to the ballot is a decidedly political act.
Here’s a SCOTUS case saying gathering of signatures is protected speech (unanimously decided)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/414/
Here’s an example of someone engaged in the exact same conduct successfully suing a municipal for violation of 1st amendment rights.
https://www.lp.org/conn-libertarians-receive-37k-settlement-in-petitioner-harassment-suit/
BluCurry8 t1_j4uzo61 wrote
They are soliciting if they are collecting signatures. Sorry you seem to not understand the meaning of the word and are so willing to give away your private data.
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4v5ns3 wrote
You can call it whatever you want, the activity - gathering signatures for a petition - is protected by the 1st Amendment. I provided links supporting my position. You’ve provided a semantic assertion. Please support your position
libananahammock t1_j4qzk9i wrote
Lol that’s rich coming from you
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4r09na wrote
Excellent job addressing the underlying issue.
libananahammock t1_j4r2hba wrote
Lol okay bud you’re the one who took it off topic. Keep being the hypocrite you’ve been on Reddit. Rules for thee but not for me, am I right?
And the funding was talking about the group in the article who was threatening to sue. I mentioned it because they themselves call themselves non partisan.
Also, if your wife or daughter was with their kids in the park you’d be okay with an aggressive candidate in their face asking for their full name, address and phone number? I don’t give a crap what political party you a part of or claim to be a part of (any creeper can claim to be collecting signatures) I don’t want to be approached in the park by an aggressive man. I mean you’d think the party that screams pedo at anyone they don’t like would understand that some people are cautious around strange people being AGGRESSIVE when campaigning which many people who were there said as much if you read other articles about this that aren’t published by the people with the agenda.
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4r4a13 wrote
You assumed the candidate was aggressive. You’ve created a whole narrative of how this went down based on zero evidence. Which just bolsters my initial point that facts are the least important of your position.
Candidates for office are required to approach people to get signatures. It’s either approach them in public places like sidewalks or parks or go door to door. If you have an issue with them obtain personal information your issue is with the law not the candidate
If a candidate or their campaigners are being aggressive and harassing people that is not covered by the 1st amendment.
libananahammock t1_j4r4eav wrote
LOL I didn’t assume, like you like to say DO YOUR RESEARCH! Look it up bud
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4rahtl wrote
Link it. I’ve found nothing that indicates they were being aggressive. If you’ve got something I’ll be more than happy to read. That doesn’t change the underlying point that peaceful gathering petitions is protected speech and anyone who defends free speech should be applauded for that defense
libananahammock t1_j4qvgum wrote
Progressive watchdog organization Media Matters included FIRE in a 2017 piece describing how groups funded by right-wing billionaires and dark money organizations influence college campuses. Media Matters says "FIRE has partnered with anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom for some of these cases. It has also frequently weighed in on sexual misconduct cases, arguing that the definition of sexual harassment should not include 'large amounts of constitutionally protected expression, such as any unwanted "sexual comments, gestures, jokes, or looks,"' and defended campus organizations that use hateful rhetoric or seek to exclude potential group members based on sexual orientation. Recently, FIRE took up the cause of defending student groups that did not want to pay extra security costs for hosting serial harasser Milo Yiannopoulos on his campus speaking tour, during which he engaged in targeted public harassment of individual students."
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Read in another language
Working-Photograph12 t1_j4rv7o2 wrote
I'm a progressive liberal and I don't think banning speech is a good thing. Even if I don't agree with it. Laws like these can be easily turned back around on gay rights groups, poc groups, etc. I think that is what most people are saying. Fuck FIRE, but I don't want to lose rights just so they also lose them. It us cutting off your nose to spite your face.
BluCurry8 t1_j4tc87j wrote
No usually if you are going to solicit or petition the public on any publicly owned space you are required to have a permit. This is not government suppression this is protecting the peace from public nuisances.
Working-Photograph12 t1_j4uovuv wrote
No, I did gotv. To register people to vote we were only allowed on public property unless given permission by private property owners.
Added: In areas where most businesses were owned by Republicans. The parks were one of the few places we could set up.
Working-Photograph12 t1_j4upm9i wrote
Pro tip: even though courts have repeatedly ruled that voter registration drives are not considered soliciting. Police do not know this and are too "my way, or the highway" about it to argue with. Just find a new spot. Or waste the day maybe even days for it.
BluCurry8 t1_j4uz4jt wrote
How is collecting signatures and private data for a petition to “protect freedom of speech” voter registration drives?
Working-Photograph12 t1_j4vuak8 wrote
Well if they are doing that there are laws against it already. Public spaces usually have "no soliciting posted." The article says they were doing voter registration. But FIRE mixes in polical bias and a host of other issues. The problem is police not enforcing the laws they are already breaking. No need to bann voter drives in parks because one group doesn't know how to properly do it.
BluCurry8 t1_j4tbsi5 wrote
Ughhhh. You really guzzled that Kool Aid! You are fucking tripping if you think they want to defend free speech.
libananahammock t1_j4tbyys wrote
Like you know the laws regarding free speech lol
BluCurry8 t1_j4td1kh wrote
Lol. I certainly know more than someone who only can copy and paste and not filing read!
libananahammock t1_j4td77m wrote
Lol it’s called doing research and not just vomiting up Fox News fear mongering talking points and things you read off of Facebook memes.
mkinn01 t1_j4qx1td wrote
How about George Soros groups and the WEF etc. this goes both ways as it should
libananahammock t1_j4qy3qu wrote
Stay on topic buddy, can you do that? We are talking about this particular situation at hand. Is George Soros involved in this particular situation at hand?
mkinn01 t1_j4qypkj wrote
The statement was aimed at the remark about a conservative funded group in the park. I was on topic stating that you have plenty of groups on the other end of spectrum doing the same thing “buddy”.
libananahammock t1_j4qzbqa wrote
Lol you STILL have zero reading comprehension skills. Did you even read the article to even be able to try and be able to understand what I’m saying. The conservative groups I mentioned weren’t funding the candidate in the park. They are funding FIRE, the group that threatened to file the lawsuit against the county. I brought up the funding because someone claimed that they were non partisan when in reality all of their funding is from and their board members are all right wing conservatives.
[deleted] t1_j4r1yx6 wrote
[removed]
tinymonesters t1_j4s5e9x wrote
They're probably constitutionally correct, but kicking political stuff out probably makes the park much more attractive to the locals.
MOSBuild1 t1_j4t3y8p wrote
TRUMP LOST LOL
trying-to-be-kind t1_j4rfwc9 wrote
Fort Hunter is a quiet park along the Susquehanna River that many people visit to eat their lunches (usually while sitting in their cars) during the work day, or maybe take their kids to play at its playground. There is a paved walkway along the river that many use during nice weather; the mansion/park often hosts weddings, as well as annual events like Ft. Hunter Day, Garden Faire, etc. Unless it's hosting one of these big events, the park itself is very quiet & low-key, with most people keeping to themselves.
This headline is misleading - no one was preventing the guys from talking politics to anyone. Based on the lawsuit, they showed up during an event hosted at the park (an event that required admission fee/tickets), and positioned themselves near the entrance to solicit signatures for a political petition. Fort Hunter has a strict "no solicitation" policy (unless you get written permission in advance from the Dir. of Parks & Recreation). Basically, these guys didn't bother to get permission, and are now trying to spin it as a violation of free speech.
EDIT: u/CltAltAcctDel makes a fair point about not needing permission to exercise free speech, so I'll to amend my earlier statement. They probably will prevail in court.
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4rjvmt wrote
If you need written permission from the government to exercise your right, it’s not a right. According to the lawsuit they were in the park for an hour before security made first contact. The event didn’t occupy the entire park so they were within their rights to be wherever they wanted outside the ticketed area.
Here’s an on-point example
https://www.lp.org/conn-libertarians-receive-37k-settlement-in-petitioner-harassment-suit/
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4rzego wrote
Thanks for the mention. You don’t see people on the internet reconsidering their position.
I agree Ft. Hunter is a beautiful, peaceful park
opskito t1_j4ru65n wrote
Further, the wrinkle is that the county refuses to give anyone permission to engage in any political activity at the park, ever. The plaintiffs should and will, hopefully, prevail.
ThePopeJones t1_j4tk8os wrote
I'm curious about the circumstances of the need for the banning of political speech in a park. If the guy is hanging out around a play ground harassing people with their kids that's one thing, but if the guys were collecting signatures next to a jogging path that's another.
Secsidar t1_j58gl69 wrote
Guaranteed way to ensure people talk about politics: ban talking about politics.
bitterbeerfaces t1_j4shen8 wrote
Follow the money.
For a park that is non-policitcal They sure do seem to allow a lot of political activity.
Dauphin County commissioners and Mastriano have held events there.
[deleted] t1_j53dcyu wrote
[deleted]
ornery-fizz t1_j4qo8p9 wrote
Fire is a nuisance organization, here they are making a nuisance of themselves in Penna
untilyouredead t1_j4qlbhw wrote
the smugness of this picture. genuinely, who gives a fuck? it’s a park
pts1354 t1_j4rc7dh wrote
Another frivolous lawsuit to keep some ambulance chaser lawyer in a job. We should be removing politics from any public place.
Zenith2017 t1_j4r5t0k wrote
Okay, fuck FIRE all the way, but in this instance I don't see that they're wrong. Political recruitment in a public space seems like a fine expression of speech. I don't want them to do it, but the constitution doesn't care about my opinions, y'know?
Edit - and if they're doing it by completely co-opting the space, harassing people, etc then that should be centered as the issue. Same as fire and brimstone preachers on public university campuses imo. They have a right to the speech and we have a right to tell them they're all jagoffs