Mizzou protesters vs student reporter
- Thread starter gusto79
- Start date
But, I'm always willing to learn. If you think you can point me to something that specifically makes it "illegal", I'll check it out. TIA.
If the whites start it the others "should" join in, just like it happened with the blacks starting theirs, no?
No, blacks don't feel the necessary authority (or paternalism as someone pointed out to me in another thread), to feel the need to step up to join whites.
Never really invoked the Constitution, just basic libertarian principles of freedom. You can shout other people down but you're not allowed to push people away.
Lol, ok, you (and others) aren't invoking the Constitution, right:
Feel free to point to the "violated liberties" statutes that make it "illegal". Again, assault is illegal. It is illegal because we codified it as such, not because it violates liberties.
Edit to add: When you speak of "freedom of speech" or "the press has a right to be there" or "liberties", are those coming from something other than the Constitution? Do you join OiT in believing that aliens, in fact, passed these "laws" down to us and they are, in actuality, inherently encoded in our DNA?
Feel free to point to the "violated liberties" statutes that make it "illegal". Again, assault is illegal. It is illegal because we codified it as such, not because it violates liberties.
Edit to add: When you speak of "freedom of speech" or "the press has a right to be there" or "liberties", are those coming from something other than the Constitution? Do you join OiT in believing that aliens, in fact, passed these "laws" down to us and they are, in actuality, inherently encoded in our DNA?
Last edited:
Here's what she did, per one report:
Communications professor Melissa Click can be heard and briefly seen at the beginning of the video, screaming, “you need to back up if you are with the media,” while student journalist Tim Tai is confronted by a group of protesters while he is taking photos.
“You need to back up, respect the students,” Click says. “BACK UP! They have asked you to respect their space, move back. This is their time. You need to step out of here now. You need to go.”
Click appears in the video again at the end, at about the 6:18 mark when she tells the student photographer filming the incident, Mark Schierbecker, who was asking a student if she wanted to be interviewed, that he has to “get out.”
Schierbecker says “no I don’t” have to leave the area, and Click responds by grabbing his camera and again telling him to “get out.”
After he again refuses, she steps away and yells out, “Hey who wants to help me get this reporter out of here. I need some muscle over here!”
Communications professor Melissa Click can be heard and briefly seen at the beginning of the video, screaming, “you need to back up if you are with the media,” while student journalist Tim Tai is confronted by a group of protesters while he is taking photos.
“You need to back up, respect the students,” Click says. “BACK UP! They have asked you to respect their space, move back. This is their time. You need to step out of here now. You need to go.”
Click appears in the video again at the end, at about the 6:18 mark when she tells the student photographer filming the incident, Mark Schierbecker, who was asking a student if she wanted to be interviewed, that he has to “get out.”
Schierbecker says “no I don’t” have to leave the area, and Click responds by grabbing his camera and again telling him to “get out.”
After he again refuses, she steps away and yells out, “Hey who wants to help me get this reporter out of here. I need some muscle over here!”
They should at least formulate a reason as to how this is all the responsibility of the president of the university.
The way things are working now, you basically have students who are saying "some bad stuff happened but instead of coming together and doing something constructive, we're going to demand someone be fired no matter the fact that they have no responsibility for it.
Sadly the football team and money prevented a good teaching moment. President should have just told them to stick it.
You're insufferable. It doesn't have to be specific. The reason for the law is your liberties have been violated if someone punches you in the face. When people engage in mutual combat, they can't later claim assault. Why? Both parties chose to invite the other to punch each other in the face. Outlawing fighting violates the combatants' liberties, so assault doesn't apply and "disorderly conduct" comes into play because they might hurt a bystander or damage the property of others while fighting, which would violate someone else's liberties.
The default position in this country is, "you're free". All our laws either protect that, or restrict that.
Well, 1) yes they can, and are both charged in many, many situations. 2) your assault vs. disorderly conduct scenario is factually, and legally, laughably incorrect. But carry on with your needless, pointless exercise in trying vainly to bring this back to what you were CLEARLY claiming as a Constitutional violation.
I posted this in an edit, so you probably didn't get to respond: Edit to add: When you speak of "freedom of speech" or "the press has a right to be there" or "liberties", are those coming from something other than the Constitution? Do you join OiT in believing that aliens, in fact, passed these "laws" down to us and they are, in actuality, inherently encoded in our DNA?
And your last line is again pointless and redundant. Assault statute's restrict it, which is why it may be illegal for a protester to grab a photographer's camera and push the photographer. It is illegal because the statute makes it such. It is also illegal to jaywalk, whose "liberties" is that violating? Oh, nobodies? It is a law because we codified it as such? Interesting.
Piggybacking on Natural's question, why should they have to formulate a reason?
Shouldn't students (or employees, or customers, or anyone) be able to protest and demand change in leadership, even without a reason? Why shouldn't they be able to do so? I see nothing wrong with it, they are leveraging what they have (refusing to eat, play, class, whatever) to get what they want.
Even if they just want it because they are bored, I encourage the process.
Just stop. You're absolutely making a fool of yourself.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/MutualCombat.aspx
Hitting your points in reverse order:
Jaywalking is a reasonable limit on our liberty to walk where ever we want because it's dangerous for the jaywalker, other pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, etc.
The reason that assault was codified as illegal because it violates the rights of others.
Yes, I believe these rights to be natural. Not given from aliens, but by grace of birth. Humans have free will, and that implies liberty. Laws are needed to balance everyone's liberties.
Didn't the constitution ban slavery. Those weren't government slaves Mr. Know-It-All.
Lol.
Do I really need to address this?
I doubt if you can explain it. Go ahead try.
Hitting your points in reverse order:
Jaywalking is a reasonable limit on our liberty to walk where ever we want because it's dangerous for the jaywalker, other pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, etc.
That isn't the point, the point is that you can' simply claim that "liberties" = why we have laws, and then ignore the laws that don't directly interfere others' liberties. It is simple, they are laws because we codified them as such.
The reason that assault was codified as illegal because it violates the rights of others.
This may, in fact, be the legislative intent behind assault statutes, but is a rather redundant point to try so hard to make. You are guilty of the crime of assault, like in Iowa, chapter 708, you are not guilty of "violating liberties". You are not arrested for violating liberties, you are arrested for violating a statute. This can be seen in this scenario: State A has NO laws on assault, Officer can not arrest a person for "assault in violation of common law liberties". You were CLEARLY referencing the Constitution, I don't know why you are now trying to distance yourself from doing so.
Yes, I believe these rights to be natural. Not given from aliens, but by grace of birth. Humans have free will, and that implies liberty. Laws are needed to balance everyone's liberties.
If they are "natural" and by "grace of birth", why aren't they protected by nature, or God, or aliens, or anything else? Why are these fundamental, inherent liberties so routinely denied in so many parts of the world? It is a fun theoretical exercise, but one that fails reality every single time. We, by the grace of our brilliant founders and resulting Constitution, have utilized our government to protect our rights, and when it wouldn't, the people have joined together to do so. There was nothing inherent about it. Freedom from slavery wasn't inherent, it was rampant and accepted, until we established otherwise.
Jaywalking is a reasonable limit on our liberty to walk where ever we want because it's dangerous for the jaywalker, other pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, etc.
That isn't the point, the point is that you can' simply claim that "liberties" = why we have laws, and then ignore the laws that don't directly interfere others' liberties. It is simple, they are laws because we codified them as such.
The reason that assault was codified as illegal because it violates the rights of others.
This may, in fact, be the legislative intent behind assault statutes, but is a rather redundant point to try so hard to make. You are guilty of the crime of assault, like in Iowa, chapter 708, you are not guilty of "violating liberties". You are not arrested for violating liberties, you are arrested for violating a statute. This can be seen in this scenario: State A has NO laws on assault, Officer can not arrest a person for "assault in violation of common law liberties". You were CLEARLY referencing the Constitution, I don't know why you are now trying to distance yourself from doing so.
Yes, I believe these rights to be natural. Not given from aliens, but by grace of birth. Humans have free will, and that implies liberty. Laws are needed to balance everyone's liberties.
If they are "natural" and by "grace of birth", why aren't they protected by nature, or God, or aliens, or anything else? Why are these fundamental, inherent liberties so routinely denied in so many parts of the world? It is a fun theoretical exercise, but one that fails reality every single time. We, by the grace of our brilliant founders and resulting Constitution, have utilized our government to protect our rights, and when it wouldn't, the people have joined together to do so. There was nothing inherent about it. Freedom from slavery wasn't inherent, it was rampant and accepted, until we established otherwise.
If we were cattle, we would go and do what we're told to do. But we're not. Even in the most repressive of regimes, people do things they're not supposed to do and get a rush from it. We are beings that depend on liberty in order to be human.
He said "the press has the right to be there." I don't see any reference to the 1st Amendment in anything he posted it. You seem to be putting words into his mouth.
Seriously? Really? Are you kidding?
The Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Now, first you have to understand that slavery was a governmental institution, it was enforced via contracts, contracts authorized and supported by government. Without that enforcement they would simply be unenforceable contracts made by people. You could still do that (illegally) today. A person could buy a "slave", sign a contract, and wave it in the air. Without the government's enforcement, it would be rather pointless. It might work in your slavery-ring-cabal, but it is worthless outside of it. THEN, on top of that, laws were passed to make it illegal, so the government could officially step in and penalize those who are attempting to use it.
If someone kidnaps a person from Africa, brings them over, and forces them, by whip, to work on their farm it is slavery. They aren't charged with violating the 13th Amendment, they are charged with violating their state's (or federal) penal code.
The Thirteenth Amendment stops the GOVERNMENT from taking part in the slavery, in enforcing the contract, in authorizing their sale, etc.
I can't believe I wasted time to do that.
I see that, and I gave it thought after Tradition claimed to not be using the Constitution, but I disagree. Starting simplistically, he is clearly using the 1st Amendment. If he is not, than there is no reason to claim that the "press" has a "right" to be there, but just that the guy shouldn't be pushed.
His point, 3 pages later, is that Mr. Photographer has a "liberty right" not to be pushed. That is not altered by his being "press", he would have that liberty regardless. The natural extension of his comment is: The First Amendment protects him, therefore nobody can forcefully move him.....implying that the First has something (or everything) to do with it, but it doesn't.
Look, I realize that many of you think I'm a long-winded blowhard who is fighting a non-issue, but I think this is actually very important. People, everyday people, including smart people like pablow above, have a deep misunderstanding of our greatest and most important document, the Constitution. I am trying to educate and correct people who make poor, incorrect, and misleading claims about that document. We have people running around claiming the Constitution protects them from all sorts of things that it does not. That burglar who stole your TV did not violate the 4th amendment when he entered your home. Your boss firing you for calling him a jackass did not violate the first amendment in doing so. A person saying, "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas, Jesus Christ our savior" is not violating the First.
The Constitution limits the actions of government, not the people. If I succeed in anything on this board is that people will better understand this.
I think the important lesson we can all learn in this thread is that theIowaHawk is the smartest guy in the room.
You should have quit while you were merely wrong. Read up; educate yourself:
United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 175-76 (2d Cir. 2002):
"Thus it has long been settled that the Thirteenth Amendment "is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States." Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 20. And accordingly, "under the Thirteenth Amendment the legislation, so far as necessary or proper to eradicate all forms and incidents of slavery and involuntary servitude, may be direct and primary, operating upon the acts of individuals, whether sanctioned by state legislation or not." Id. at 23; see also Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 179, 49 L. Ed. 2d 415, 96 S. Ct. 2586 (1976) (noting that it "has never been doubted" that the power granted Congress by the Thirteenth Amendment "includes the power to enact laws . . . operating upon the acts of individuals" (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 438-39, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1189, 88 S. Ct. 2186 (1968) ("If Congress has power under the Thirteenth Amendment to eradicate conditions . . .,then no federal statute calculated to achieve that objective can be thought to exceed the constitutional power of Congress simply because it reaches beyond state action to regulate the conduct of private individuals."). The fact that § 245(b)(2)(B) is applied in this case to reach purely private conduct therefore does not -- regardless of what might be the rule in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment -- present any obstacle to that statute's being upheld as a proper exercise of Congress's power under the Thirteenth Amendment."
)
I understand what you're saying just fine, but you're ignoring that the burglar did indeed violate your rights.
The other two examples, no, that's not a violation of your rights.
That's fine, although I still think you picked a fight here by lawyering up on this guy. One other point I'll make is that when someone uses "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press," you seem to equate that to the 1st Amendment. But the 1st Amendment is just one embodiment of those concepts. It is possible to believe that each of us has a moral duty to respect the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, even if we do not have legal duties to do so as private actors. I would never try to shout down someone expressing an opinion contrary to mine to prevent them from being heard because I believe that each of us is duty bound to respect another's God given (not Constitutionally given) right to express their opinion.
Well said, you win.
Tradition has posted enough of his manifesto for me to reasonably know what he meant and where he was heading. I don't think he meant that these protestors had a moral, societal duty to respect the photographer, he was alleging they were acting illegally by way of the First.
Hint: your answer is right there in what you posted. Congress was authorized to pass legislation to eradicate slavery. Those laws affect private people, not the Thirteenth. What you cited was an attack directly on CONGRESSIONAL authority to pass that extensive of legislation.
It says so right in what you posted.
Said in simpler terms: without the federal/state legislation, the Thirteenth could not be used to penalize a person for slavery...because the Constitution is a check on government, not the people.
No, no, no, no, I hope that is not where anyone takes this. Please, no. Asshole, sure, blowhard, naturally, but not smartest. I do not claim to be smarter than anyone else, nor should anyone take it that way. Take whatever you wish from my posts, but don't belittle yourself, I'm just as dumb as all of you.
Yes, he did, but not your Constitutional rights. I.e. The 4th Amendment. Which rights did he violate? Well I'm sure we could all argue all day and night about which "rights" we inherently have, it is just a pointless exercise without something/one to enforce it.
This statement right here is a the epitome of what I find seriously wrong with that system you and I have spoken about on many occasions.
Here we have young men and women protesting poop, instead of the wars like they used to. The system has drowned out the cries for anti-war and given way to false causes.
THAT is why we still have so many issues that are ripping this country into shreds of its former self. We care and are outraged when there is little reason to be, and when the real problems come calling, we are silent.
Human rights. That's what we're talking about.
The 1950 bunch have the right to protest. The student reporter has the right to take pictures in public.
The 1950 bunch doesn't have the right to accost that man to stop him from taking pictures.
They violated his human rights.
And its probably not fair for me to jump in at the end here, because I'm deprived of any context that past interactions between you two may provide to color your debate. I get to make my comments in a vacuum.
Are you calling in The Hague?
You violate what I consider MY human rights nearly every time you post, so what?
Well yes. that was the immediate issue before the Court of Appeals, but in answering the challenge to the statute the Court stated it was well-settled that the 13th amendment was intended to and does reach private conduct. BTW, the Prohibition amendments deal with private conduct and probably the voting rights amendments too.
You stated the free speech provision of the First amendment do not apply to private conduct. Correct. Then you posted that the constitution as a whole does not proscribe private conduct. This is not true and I've given a few examples. The fact that civil and criminal remedies must be initiated by Congress does not defeat the fact that some constitutional prohibitions apply to individual conduct, although most do not.
No, not only is this legally inaccurate, but logically false as well.
YOU cited that case, you can't then just move on past it. In that case they were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B).
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--
(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been--
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof;
They then claimed that law was unconstitutional: they claim that § 245(b)(2)(B) represents, at least as applied to them, an improper exercise of congressional power beyond the authority given to the federal government by the Constitution...
This was a specific claim that Congress did not have authority to pass that law, because there was no authority granting them that power. The court, however found that the law fell comfortably within Congress's powers under the Thirteenth Amendment as that Amendment has authoritatively been interpreted.
This is precisely where the case ran in to the language you provided. They were not charged under the Constitution, they were charged under a federal law passed by the federal legislature....authorized by the Thirteenth Amendment. Precisely what I said earlier.
...it "has never been doubted" that the power granted Congress by the Thirteenth Amendment "includes the power to enact laws . . . operating upon the acts of individuals" ...
The 13th Amendment, itself does not reach private conduct, it authorizes Congress to regulate private conduct.
What other of the "few examples" that you provided would you like to stand on? Prohibition? No, that granted the government authority to enact THE VOLSTEAD ACT, without which there would be no illegal conduct.
Look, again, this is fairly simple. Absent that federal law....are you claiming that they would have been indicted under the Thirteenth? Of course not, it limits governmental conduct. Yes, it DOES defeat the very fact you claim it doesn't. If the Constitution specifically applies to individual conduct, there would be no need for further legislation. If I broke in to your house I would be charged with violating the 4th, if I murdered you I might be guilty of violating the 6th and not granting you a trial. Follow that logic.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94