|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 27, 2019 14:41:42 GMT -5
Apparently you don't have a right to a lawyer any more.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 13:47:54 GMT -5
Did people do anything more than protest and start a petition? How do those take away anybody's rights?
Do you want these people to stop protesting?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 28, 2019 14:18:23 GMT -5
Did people do anything more than protest and start a petition? How do those take away anybody's rights?
Do you want these people to stop protesting?
I never said that anybody does not have the right to protest, did I? My objection is about WHAT they were protesting.
They were protesting the right of a lawyer to represent a client. This undermines the right of an accused to be represented by council.
This right is fundamental to a just and fair legal system. Get rid of it and we might as well be back to the days of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber.
And BTW, they may have the right to protest. But I also have the right to protest their protest.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 13:40:05 GMT -5
Did these protests diminish any such rights and freedoms?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 1, 2019 15:40:11 GMT -5
Did these protests diminish any such rights and freedoms?
If these protesters get their way, then rights and freedoms will be diminished. Lawyers will no longer be able to choose controversial clients. Accused people will have less of a chance to hire a decent lawyer.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 15:46:34 GMT -5
What do you mean with "if they get their way"? They can't force him to do anything.
Whatever he does, he does out of his own free will.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 1, 2019 15:51:27 GMT -5
What do you mean with "if they get their way"? They can't force him to do anything.
Whatever he does, he does out of his own free will.
If they get their way, then that law professor will eith be intimidated into dropping that case, or he will be fired by the University.
In that case, other law professors would think twice about defending unpopular people in court.
That erodes the rights of both lawyers and defendants.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 15:56:15 GMT -5
So you are saying that these protesterss are capable of forcing this guy to act against his own free will?
How does that work?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 1, 2019 20:28:26 GMT -5
So you are saying that these protesterss are capable of forcing this guy to act against his own free will? How does that work?
Yes, if someone puts a gun to your head and says "Your money or your life", you still have the power to say "No."
But what are the odds of you making that choice?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 15:42:33 GMT -5
So you are saying that these protesterss are capable of forcing this guy to act against his own free will? How does that work? Yes, if someone puts a gun to your head and says "Your money or your life", you still have the power to say "No." But what are the odds of you making that choice? Bob
If somebody is putting a gun to my head, they are threatening me with immediate physical, possibly lethal, injury.
How is a protest similar to that?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 2, 2019 16:38:18 GMT -5
Yes, if someone puts a gun to your head and says "Your money or your life", you still have the power to say "No." But what are the odds of you making that choice? Bob
If somebody is putting a gun to my head, they are threatening me with immediate physical, possibly lethal, injury.
How is a protest similar to that?
Are you claiming that protests have no effects at all? Are you claiming that protests by college students have never affected the actions of college administrators or professors? Just checking.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 22:53:40 GMT -5
Affecting somebody's actions is not the same thing as diminishing or restricting somebody's freedoms, which are not the same thing as force or violence, which are not the same thing as lethal force and violence.
Can you now explain to me how a gun to my head is similar to a protest?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 3, 2019 1:41:13 GMT -5
Affecting somebody's actions is not the same thing as diminishing or restricting somebody's freedoms, which are not the same thing as force or violence, which are not the same thing as lethal force and violence. Can you now explain to me how a gun to my head is similar to a protest?
Simple. It's the threat of force.
Threatening to get you fired is a milder form. But it still aims to do you harm.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2019 19:35:57 GMT -5
Affecting somebody's actions is not the same thing as diminishing or restricting somebody's freedoms, which are not the same thing as force or violence, which are not the same thing as lethal force and violence. Can you now explain to me how a gun to my head is similar to a protest? Simple. It's the threat of force. Threatening to get you fired is a milder form. But it still aims to do you harm. Bob
You compared these protests to putting a gun to somebody's head. Threatening somebody with lethal harm is illegal in America, correct? If I put a gun to your head and threaten you, I'd be guilty of a crime, would I not? If protests are a form of violence with the aim to harm people, then how are they still legal? The protesters are committing a criminal act, are they not?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 4, 2019 1:13:31 GMT -5
Simple. It's the threat of force. Threatening to get you fired is a milder form. But it still aims to do you harm. Bob
You compared these protests to putting a gun to somebody's head. Threatening somebody with lethal harm is illegal in America, correct? If I put a gun to your head and threaten you, I'd be guilty of a crime, would I not? If protests are a form of violence with the aim to harm people, then how are they still legal? The protesters are committing a criminal act, are they not?
Red Herring.
I said that threatening to get a person is a milder form of force. What does that have to do with whether or not it is illegal?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 12:41:55 GMT -5
You said that these protests " aim to do harm". Shouldn't it be considered a crime if somebody deliberately causes harm to people? Putting a gun to your head is a crime.
Why shouldn't threatening to do harm be considered a crime?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 5, 2019 15:05:38 GMT -5
You said that these protests " aim to do harm". Shouldn't it be considered a crime if somebody deliberately causes harm to people? Direct physical harm to a person or their property is already a crime. There is no immediate threat of physical harm. You cannot stop a person (or a group of people) from expressing an opinion. But on the other hand, these people cannot stop anyone else from expressing a contrary opinion and claiming that their actions are not only wrong but harmful. The harm is not only to the lawyer who is being coerced into dropping an unpopular client. There is harm to the legal system. How can people have the right to an attorney if the attorney is being bullied into dropping the case? It already is here in America, and has been for a long time. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 0:44:04 GMT -5
It already is here in America, and has been for a long time. So you're saying these protesters are criminals? You did claim that they are "aiming to do harm" didn't you?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 6, 2019 14:00:23 GMT -5
It already is here in America, and has been for a long time. So you're saying these protesters are criminals? Not at all. I am saying that these protestors are wrong. If the protestors are successful, they will make it harder for accused people to hire a lawyer. Yes. But the method they are using to cause this harm is protest, and peaceful protest cannot be declared to be illegal. To do so would also destroy basic rights. The best way to counter their protests is to use our own right to protest and to protest them. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 17:59:47 GMT -5
So you're saying these protesters are criminals? Not at all.
And now you backpedal and claim that they aren't actually doing anything harmful.
Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 6, 2019 23:42:46 GMT -5
Yes. Right. They are causing him harm. And not only do they want to deny him his rights. They want to destroy the Rights of the Accused to get an attorney. No. I am claiming they are not doing anything illegal. And their actions cannot be made illegal because that would violate their Free Speech Rights. The only way to combat these threats to the Right of the Accused to be represented by an attorney is to for those opposed to use their own Free Speech Rights and have a counter-movement that exposes the danger these protestors pose to Freedom. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 14:10:45 GMT -5
Yes. Right. They are causing him harm. And not only do they want to deny him his rights. They want to destroy the Rights of the Accused to get an attorney. No. I am claiming they are not doing anything illegal. And their actions cannot be made illegal because that would violate their Free Speech Rights. The only way to combat these threats to the Right of the Accused to be represented by an attorney is to for those opposed to use their own Free Speech Rights and have a counter-movement that exposes the danger these protestors pose to Freedom. Bob You just claimed that they are causing him harm and violating his rights, then you claim that what they did is protected under the right to freedom of speech. Does that mean causing harm and violating people's rights is a valid exercise of freedom of speech?
Becuase that would be a logical conclusion to be inferred from these two claims.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 7, 2019 22:15:21 GMT -5
Yes. Right. They are causing him harm. And not only do they want to deny him his rights. They want to destroy the Rights of the Accused to get an attorney. No. I am claiming they are not doing anything illegal. And their actions cannot be made illegal because that would violate their Free Speech Rights. The only way to combat these threats to the Right of the Accused to be represented by an attorney is to for those opposed to use their own Free Speech Rights and have a counter-movement that exposes the danger these protestors pose to Freedom. Bob You just claimed that they are causing him harm and violating his rights, then you claim that what they did is protected under the right to freedom of speech. Yes. As long as a protestor does not incite violence or tell lies against their victim, they are not breaking the law. The only way to stop them would be using one's own Freedom of Speech to argue against them. What's the problem here? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 12:41:35 GMT -5
Is harming people and restricting their rights a legal and valid exercise of freedom of speech, yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2019 17:53:43 GMT -5
Is harming people and restricting their rights a legal and valid exercise of freedom of speech, yes or no?
What your question ignores is the degree of harm.
Physical harm and forceful restriction of rights is already illegal.
Any other harm comes under the civil law. If you think someone is harming you, you can sue them in civil courts.
For example, if someone is spreading gossip about you, you wouldn't go to the police. At most, you would go to a lawyer.
So in answer to your question, great harm is not a valid exercise of Freedom of Speech. Minor harm is not nice, but cannot be illegal without harming the principle of Freedom of Speech itself.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 21:48:35 GMT -5
So in conclusion, you became disproportionally outraged over a legitimate and valid exercise of free speech that may at worst result in a negligible amount of harm.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2019 22:39:38 GMT -5
So in conclusion, you became disproportionally outraged over a legitimate and valid exercise of free speech that may at worst result in a negligible amount of harm.
"Disproportionately" is your unsupported opinion. So is "a negligible amount of harm."
Apparently, you don't think it harmful from forcing lawyers to drop controversial clients, or depriving unpopular people of their right to an attorney.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 12:35:21 GMT -5
So in conclusion, you became disproportionally outraged over a legitimate and valid exercise of free speech that may at worst result in a negligible amount of harm. "Disproportionately" is your unsupported opinion. So is "a negligible amount of harm." Apparently, you don't think it harmful from forcing lawyers to drop controversial clients, or depriving unpopular people of their right to an attorney.
Bob
And apparently, neither do you, because you just argued for half a page how this case should not be seen as a crime, but rather as a valid and legitimate exercise of free speech. As you said yourself: "If you think someone is harming you, you can sue them in civil courts." The law professor was free to sue if he thought he was being harmed, and he freely chose not to. It seems that the amount of harm was not so great as to make him take these people to court. In other words, it was neglibible - it was small enough for him to shrug it off and go on with his business.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 9, 2019 23:11:42 GMT -5
"Disproportionately" is your unsupported opinion. So is "a negligible amount of harm." Apparently, you don't think it harmful from forcing lawyers to drop controversial clients, or depriving unpopular people of their right to an attorney.
Bob
And apparently, neither do you, because you just argued for half a page how this case should not be seen as a crime, but rather as a valid and legitimate exercise of free speech. As you said yourself: "If you think someone is harming you, you can sue them in civil courts." The law professor was free to sue if he thought he was being harmed, and he freely chose not to. It seems that the amount of harm was not so great as to make him take these people to court. In other words, it was neglibible - it was small enough for him to shrug it off and go on with his business.
For some reason, you seem to think that everything that shouldn't be a police matter is not serious.
Undermining the right of the accused to choose an attorney is a serious matter. And any such undermining should be opposed. It just cannot be opposed by arresting those who advocate destroying that right without undermining other rights.
The fact that this professor hasn't been fired yet is meaningless. With today's political situation, he could easily be fired.
The solution is for people to use their own right of free speech to counter this attack on the rights of the accused and the rights of lawyers.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 13:10:18 GMT -5
The fact that this professor hasn't been fired yet is meaningless. With today's political situation, he could easily be fired. First of all, you have not demonstrated that there is any real danger of this professor's employer reacting to these protests by firing him. All you have demonstrated is that there are people who are calling for his resignation.
Second of all, employers have the free choice whom they employ, and when to break that contract of employment. If they choose to fire somebody because of some protesters, then that's on them: The employer is responsible for their own action.
A protester, on the other hand, is not morally responsible for how other people react to their protests.
|
|