Walker handles hecklers at the Iowa State Fair

[22*43*51]

Scott Walker was confronted by protesters during a speech at the Iowa State Fair's "Soapbox" on Monday. His response — pointed and aggressive as hell — amounts to the best moment the Wisconsin governor has had on the campaign trail since he formally entered the presidential race.

Scott Walker to protester: 'I am not intimidated'
Play Video0:28Live Video

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, spoke at the Des Moines Register Soapbox at the Iowa State Fair. (C-SPAN)
"I am not intimidated by you sir or anyone else out there," Walker says, loudly, to a protester in the front row. "This is what happened in Wisconsin," Walker added. "We will not back down."

Walker has struggled mightily to show passion on the campaign trail or the debate stage thus far in the race. To a certain extent he's tried to embrace that vanilla-ness, but being "the boring guy" in the race — particularly a race currently being dominated by Donald Trump — has its limits.

Walker's willingness to face down a protester while staying exactly on message is impressive. Walker's great strength in the presidential race is that he has fought Democrats and won in Wisconsin. The I've-been-there-and-done-that message is a winner for Walker. The more he looks and sounds like a fighter, the better. A little passion can go a long way for Walker.

Watch the last 10 seconds or so of the clip above. The "this is what happened in Wisconsin" line is both a) very good and b) very well delivered.

Don't be surprised if you see some of that 27 seconds (or a lot of it) in a 30-second ad for Walker in Iowa or New Hampshire some time soon.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

And stood by and watched as some of his supporters manhandled and ripped the sign away from the citizen expressing his first amendment right.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

And stood by and watched as some of his supporters manhandled and ripped the sign away from the citizen expressing his first amendment right.

And how many times have you seen a heckler at a democrat candidates speech get treated nicely by supporters?

Really?

 

[THE_DEVIL]

And how many times have you seen a heckler at a democrat candidates speech get treated nicely by supporters?

Really?

That is wrong also.

 

[22*43*51]

That is wrong also.

That's the killer about the 1st.

As a citizen I can say whatever I want, but that doesn't mean other citizens can tell me to shut up.

If the heckler was assaulted, I would hope he pressed charges.

 

[markfromj]

...the citizen expressing his first amendment right.

That amendment does not grant a citizen the right to interupt an invited speaker.

 

[Lone Clone]

Kasich, Bush and Walker have two things in common. They are the objects of vicious attacks and vilification by teachers unions, and education in their states has improved dramatically under their tenure.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

That amendment does not grant a citizen the right to interupt an invited speaker.

Thank you!! ^^ People throw the "1st amendment" phrase out there willy nilly to defend almost any disruptive action or otherwise rude and inconsiderate behavior. That's not what the 1st amendment guarantees.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Show me where in the 1st amendment a person is granted a right to disrupt events and campaigns and speeches of others, etc. Can I come into your yard and punch you in the face and then scream, "freedom of speech", "freedom of speech"...? No, there are other laws and statutes that apply too

 

[theIowaHawk]

That amendment does not grant a citizen the right to interupt an invited speaker.

It is sad that people don't understand the First. I'm looking at you Mark.

 

[theIowaHawk]

That's the killer about the 1st.

As a citizen I can say whatever I want, but that doesn't mean other citizens can't tell me to shut up.

If the heckler was assaulted, I would hope he pressed charges.

I presume this is a typo, so I'll just fix it .

 

[theIowaHawk]

What I think Devil is trying to point out is that Walker is saying he won't back down to people like the heckler, but his followers' response is to forcibly stop the guy from speaking. (No idea if true, or what happened). It isn't that those people violated his First right, it is that the whole "I won't back down" thing is largely nonsense when your people physically shut the person up you claim you won't back down from.

Hypothetical: if this happened in front of your presidential candidate, would you want him to speak out against it, to stop it?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Is it just me, or does his support posters look quite similar to the SSM equal sign?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Thank you!! ^^ People throw the "1st amendment" phrase out there willy nilly to defend almost any disruptive action or otherwise rude and inconsiderate behavior. That's not what the 1st amendment guarantees.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Show me where in the 1st amendment a person is granted a right to disrupt events and campaigns and speeches of others, etc. Can I come into your yard and punch you in the face and then scream, "freedom of speech", "freedom of speech"...? No, there are other laws and statutes that apply too

Do you really want me to answer this? I will, if you'd actually like me to.

 

[markfromj]

It is sad that people don't understand the First. I'm looking at you Mark.

Please clarify my alleged confusion here.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Please clarify my alleged confusion here.

The Amendment is limiting government, not granting the right to the person. It stops government from interfering with speech.

Let me clarify my earlier post, in a technical sense you are correct, the First does not grant the citizen that right, because it has no stance, directly, on whether the citizen can/can't.

If the government (see Secret Service, Polk County Sheriff, etc.) had stopped them from "heckling" or speaking, there would be a lawsuit alleging a violation of the First, and they would win. Heckling, especially at a PUBLIC political event is protected by the First. This is not a "fire/movie theater" example. There is no asshole exclusion from the First.

So, yes, in practice, the First does grant the heckler that right to "interrupt an invited speaker", in the form of protecting them from government action/retaliation.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Do you really want me to answer this? I will, if you'd actually like me to.

Knock yourself out...but do us all a favor first and read through what I wrote, slowly, a time or two before doing so. You might save yourself, and us, some time.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Just so you all know Walker is a descendant of George Herbert Walker, a known Nazi supporter and financial asset to them.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Knock yourself out...but do us all a favor first and read through what I wrote, slowly, a time or two before doing so. You might save yourself, and us, some time.

See above.

 

[markfromj]

Let me clarify my earlier post, in a technical sense you are correct, the First does not grant the citizen that right, because it has no stance, directly, on whether the citizen can/can't.

I agree with your entire response, and the part I retain here is the exact point I was making.

One would hope civility and a respect for proper and useful discourse would enforce non-interuption of invited speakers, but it does not always.

But is it really true that "the government" (say, a cop/sherriff) cannot legaly haul off an interupter? That is not okay with me if true.

 

[naturalmwa]

That amendment does not grant a citizen the right to interupt an invited speaker.

Why do you think this?

 

[naturalmwa]

Knock yourself out...but do us all a favor first and read through what I wrote, slowly, a time or two before doing so. You might save yourself, and us, some time.

You should follow your own advice. You equate punching a guy with shouting. That's pretty lame.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I agree with your entire response, and the part I retain here is the exact point I was making.

One would hope civility and a respect for proper and useful discourse would enforce non-interuption of invited speakers, but it does not always.

But is it really true that "the government" (say, a cop/sherriff) cannot legaly haul off an interupter? That is not okay with me if true.

You are ok with government choosing sides in politics, i.e. GOP speaker, Democrat heckler, so we remove the democrat?

That seems frightening to me. Public, especially political, discourse since the beginning of recorded history has included hecklers, arguments, protestors, etc.

I absolutely believe the government stopping that guy would violate the First Amendment. I really hope everyone would agree.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

You are ok with government choosing sides in politics, i.e. GOP speaker, Democrat heckler, so we remove the democrat?

That seems frightening to me. Public, especially political, discourse since the beginning of recorded history has included hecklers, arguments, protestors, etc.

I absolutely believe the government stopping that guy would violate the First Amendment. I really hope everyone would agree.

This is where you and I agree.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You should follow your own advice. You equate punching a guy with shouting. That's pretty lame.

Shouting at a VERY public speech, you know, in the middle of the State f****** Fair.

Plus, heckling, or whatever you want to call it, is proper discourse, always has been. Just because a group of people want to hear whitewashed things to make them nod and smile doesn't mean someone should be stopped from expressing an opposing viewpoint.

 

[Chewback]

Scott Walker was confronted by protesters during a speech at the Iowa State Fair's "Soapbox" on Monday. His response — pointed and aggressive as hell — amounts to the best moment the Wisconsin governor has had on the campaign trail since he formally entered the presidential race.

Scott Walker to protester: 'I am not intimidated'
Play Video0:28Live Video

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, spoke at the Des Moines Register Soapbox at the Iowa State Fair. (C-SPAN)
"I am not intimidated by you sir or anyone else out there," Walker says, loudly, to a protester in the front row. "This is what happened in Wisconsin," Walker added. "We will not back down."

Walker has struggled mightily to show passion on the campaign trail or the debate stage thus far in the race. To a certain extent he's tried to embrace that vanilla-ness, but being "the boring guy" in the race — particularly a race currently being dominated by Donald Trump — has its limits.

Walker's willingness to face down a protester while staying exactly on message is impressive. Walker's great strength in the presidential race is that he has fought Democrats and won in Wisconsin. The I've-been-there-and-done-that message is a winner for Walker. The more he looks and sounds like a fighter, the better. A little passion can go a long way for Walker.

Watch the last 10 seconds or so of the clip above. The "this is what happened in Wisconsin" line is both a) very good and b) very well delivered.

Don't be surprised if you see some of that 27 seconds (or a lot of it) in a 30-second ad for Walker in Iowa or New Hampshire some time soon.

Did you get damp when you heard that line?

 

[tWarnerHawk]

I Am Not Intimidated!!!

 

[ChodaBoy]

Shouting at a VERY public speech, you know, in the middle of the State f****** Fair.

Plus, heckling, or whatever you want to call it, is proper discourse, always has been. Just because a group of people want to hear whitewashed things to make them nod and smile doesn't mean someone should be stopped from expressing an opposing viewpoint.

I have to ask: Do you have a job and/or life? GD you post a lot at all hours of the day.

 

[Tom Paris]

Kasich, Bush and Walker have two things in common. They are the objects of vicious attacks and vilification by teachers unions, and education in their states has improved dramatically under their tenure.

Oh I highly doubt the quality of education has improved in their states. There might be categories where there is improvement but it isn't because of anything these politicians did.

 

[22*43*51]

Did you get damp when you heard that line?

Sure. I like it when people stand up against Union thuggery.

 

[tumorboy]

He's not intimidated as long as he's surrounded by a security detail. When he dropped the Act 10 Bomb in 2011. He was almost never in public & went into hiding like he was Salman Rushdie. The legislatures took all the heat from his actions. He lead from the rear.

 

[22*43*51]

He's not intimidated as long as he's surrounded by a security detail. When he dropped the Act 10 Bomb in 2011. He was almost never in public & went into hiding like he was Salman Rushdie. The legislatures took all the heat from his actions. He lead from the rear.

Don't blame him. Those thugs are unhinged.

 

[theIowaHawk]

This is where you and I agree.

Yuck, now I feel dirty.

 

[tumorboy]

Guess your both are chicken hawks then. cadets guy

 

[theIowaHawk]

Guess your both are chicken hawks then.

Why? You in favor of government controlling speech?

 

[theIowaHawk]

I have to ask: Do you have a job and/or life? GD you post a lot at all hours of the day.

Really I don't post all hours, usually very weird hours. I drive a lot.

 

[tumorboy]

Why? You in favor of government controlling speech?

It was meant for cadets guy

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

It is sad that people don't understand the First. I'm looking at you Mark.

"Iowa code regarding Disorderly Conduct - A person commits a simple misdemeanor when the person does any of the following:

723.4 Without lawful authority or color of authority, the person disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons by conduct intended to disrupt the meeting or assembly."

It is my interpretation of the Iowa Law quoted above that an intentional act of disruption at a public meeting is a simple misdemeanor. In other words, it is not OK under "free speech" to take over someone else's public meeting or "shout someone down" from the audience, etc. Not that it has not been tried, or even accomplished, before...but it is not "covered" by the 1st amendment.

That is the point I am trying to make and I invite anyone to show me how this law does not apply to the point of this thread.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

You should follow your own advice. You equate punching a guy with shouting. That's pretty lame.

It was not my intention to equate punching and talking...but I can see how it might have come across that way. It was my intention to give an example of something that is not OK just because someone may cry "free speech". Probably a bad example on my part...but please take a look at the other post in this thread that I just made and tell me where I am wrong.

 

[theIowaHawk]

"Iowa code regarding Disorderly Conduct - A person commits a simple misdemeanor when the person does any of the following:

723.4 Without lawful authority or color of authority, the person disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons by conduct intended to disrupt the meeting or assembly."

It is my interpretation of the Iowa Law quoted above that an intentional act of disruption at a public meeting is a simple misdemeanor. In other words, it is not OK under "free speech" to take over someone else's public meeting or "shout someone down" from the audience, etc. Not that it has not been tried, or even accomplished, before...but it is not "covered" by the 1st amendment.

That is the point I am trying to make and I invite anyone to show me how this law does not apply to the point of this thread.

Protected speech is specifically a defense to that crime. Just FYI.

Also, statutes don't override the Constitution nor prove its scope.

 

[naturalmwa]

It was not my intention to equate punching and talking...but I can see how it might have come across that way. It was my intention to give an example of something that is not OK just because someone may cry "free speech". Probably a bad example on my part...but please take a look at the other post in this thread that I just made and tell me where I am wrong.

OK, fair enough. I would point out that shouting at a politician on a soapbox platform specifically set up for public interaction is a little different than that same protester shouting down that same politician while conducting official business and very much different from that protester interrupting other private citizens conducting their private business which is what I imagine is the actual aim of the law you cited. In short, this is what is supposed to happen at this event.

Maybe this is why Rs are so mad all the time and so enamored by Trump finally calling politicians stupid. Rs are just too damn polite and it is building up your rage level. Find a candidate and rant on him a while. You will feel better and Trump wont seem so amazing.