DiscussMormonism.com

Hello,

Somewhere in Romneys acceptance speech he mentioned free speech as a good thing. The reason Ron Paul wasn't a speaker at the convention was that in order to speak he needed to have his speach pre-approved. The LDS church has a long history of excommunicating (or worse) anyone who says anything negative about the leaders (past or present). As a bishop it's quite likely he was involved in the excommunication process. People don't generally like free speech when that speech is negative towards them. During the Bush years Bush created free speech zones where those who had negative material were rounded up and sent. Is there any reason to assume that Romney won't do the same?

I believe individuals, groups, organizations, and companies etc. generally have the right to control their message on their own "territory", or that which they legitimately control at the time such as rented space or that which they have been legitimately assigned such as a speech on campus, and amongst their own membership without fear of interference or interruption. Persons who have joined themselves to these groups can be expelled from these groups based on speech but of course they can continue their speech elsewhere.

So for example, though I am opposed to most cases of abortion, I support the notion that abortion protestors must take it across the street. I support the notion that a person can be excommunicated from a church for speech contrary to the doctrines, policies, ideals of that church. And of course I support free speech zones or what ever it takes, including arrest or other restraint, to keep protestors from interfering or interrupting the speech of others. I believe groups and individuals themselves have the right to enforce these rights on their own as long as it's on their own territory.

Hello bcspace,

When Bush was in office he established free speach zones whenever he came to a city to speak. He also did other things with regards to privacy which I won't get into. When Obama became president he chose not to prosecute Bush for various crimes in office. There is now the precedent for the president having the capability of establishing free speach zones. The sweeps were done in areas larger than the rented space. They included the public roads that the president would travel on.

I agree people have legal rights when to limit free speach in locations that they rent or own, and that organizations have a right to establish certain rules of membership. As a bishop, Romney would have a legal right to enforch church policy of excomunicating those who perform actions deemed by the GA's as inapropriate. Romney had a right to aproove Ron Pauls speach.

The question still is will Romney bring back free speach zones? Is there any reason to believe he won't. Because of Bush they are now legal.

bcspace wrote:I believe individuals, groups, organizations, and companies etc. generally have the right to control their message on their own "territory", or that which they legitimately control at the time such as rented space or that which they have been legitimately assigned such as a speech on campus, and amongst their own membership without fear of interference or interruption.

If political parties were not accorded this right, imagine all the nutty things that would be said by their own members. This rightfully concerned the Republicans with all those tea party candidates and delegates this year.

I can imagine the Democrats wanting to pull the plug on some speaker wishing to save the whales and puppies, by placing them in the rain forest and serenading them with Wyndham Hill songs hummed by Al Gore, in order to get in touch with their inner whaleness and puppyhood.

Today or Tomorrow?

When Bush was in office he established free speach zones whenever he came to a city to speak. He also did other things with regards to privacy which I won't get into. When Obama became president he chose not to prosecute Bush for various crimes in office.

Don't make the mistake that I agree with everything Bush did just because I am conservative. Bush was far too left wing. However, he certainly was no criminal. Obama is a serial felon compared to him.

There is now the precedent for the president having the capability of establishing free speach zones. The sweeps were done in areas larger than the rented space. They included the public roads that the president would travel on.

Sounds good to me. Actually, the 1988 DNC convention beat him to the precedent. Who would that be? The flaming liberal Dukakis no less.

The question still is will Romney bring back free speach zones? Is there any reason to believe he won't. Because of Bush they are now legal.

I hope he does. I'll bet the Democrats do it too.

I can imagine the Democrats wanting to pull the plug on some speaker wishing to save the whales and puppies, by placing them in the rain forest and serenading them with Wyndham Hill songs hummed by Al Gore, in order to get in touch with their inner whaleness and puppyhood.

The Democratic-controlled media censored appearances of non white speakers at the RNC Convention.

Proof that Republicans do not suppress free speech: They let RNC Chairman Reince Priebus speak at the Convention even though he was three sheets to the wind. He was so blotto he made John Boehner look somewhat sober.

When driving time is required between the yachts and the hotel, at least the staff has some time to sober them up. Damn you Hurricane Isaac! Why don't they employ the Breathalyzer like they do at Fox News?