Ray McGovern

[k-robjoe]

"As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression, 71-year-old Ray McGovern was grabbed from the audience in plain view of her by police and an unidentified official in plain clothes, brutalized and left bleeding in jail. She never paused speaking. When Secretary Clinton began her speech, Mr. McGovern remained standing silently in the audience and turned his back. Mr. McGovern, a veteran Army officer who also worked as a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years, was wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt.

Blind-sided by security officers who pounced upon him, Mr. McGovern remarked, as he was hauled out the door, "So this is America?" Mr. McGovern is covered with bruises, lacerations and contusions inflicted in the assault."

http://www.justiceonline.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5553&news_iv_ctrl=1003

But Ray McGovern is a conspiracy theorist, isn´t he. So then there´s no problem. Or is there?

[hack89]

1. He was asked twice to sit down and he refused.

what right does he have to ruin the event for everyone else?

[k-robjoe]

2. Ruin the event?

Did he really?

"In 1992, McGovern who is a Roman Catholic, expressed his dissent of the church’s position on women as priests by standing during Sunday Mass in what became a years’ long protest. This civil protest ultimately resulted in media attention and a conversation with James Cardinal Hickey.

(...)

When Secretary Clinton walked into the room, the audience rose and applauded before sitting back down. All but Ray McGovern, just as he had done hundreds of times before in the Catholic church without incident."

http://www.theprogressivemind.info/?p=55295

But the difference is the cameras? He would show up on video? And that would ruin the whole thing?

[hack89]

3. If he was standing in the back of room fine,

if he was standing in front of me, blocking my view and distracting me, then yes the event would be ruined for me.

[k-robjoe]

4. And if you knew

that he would get the sort of treatment by the police that he got, would you call in the police (*) or would you move over to another seat.

(*) If it was up to you.

[k-robjoe]

6. Videoclip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0j1zs3U4g0&feature=player_embedded

[Stanchetalarooni]

29. A much better video here:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FfCGfIB&h=3f1c7

[MrMickeysMom]

31. "So, this is America"....

This is the America we allow, Ray.

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. I would have stood up and joined him in his protest...

There were some still shots posted in a thread in GD, and it didn't look like it would have been too hard to see around him. It didn't look like a very big room, and it looked like he was pretty close to the rear of the room, but I could be wrong on my perspective since it doesn't really show a shot from the stage...

[eomer]

5. The Egyptians were asked to go home, more than twice, and they refused. (eom)

[hack89]

10. Because Mubarak and Clinton are both despots

in charge of authoritarian regimes - right?

[eomer]

43. No, they're not. Your point?

That's of course not what McGovern was protesting at the Clinton speech.

Do you say that McGovern has no legitimate complaint, that there's nothing that warrants protesting? If so, McGovern obviously disagrees with you. So do I.

[MrMickeysMom]

30. He has every right to turn his back on her as a form of civil

disobedience.

Besides, just how many people are supposed to be ruined by this act? I'm pretty sure they all got his message. I'm also sure it's a very American thing to do unless you don't think Americans have that right anymore.

[hack89]

He has no right to disrupt it for others.

He made his point, was asked twice to sit down, and willing accepted the logical consequences. He got what he wanted - would we even know about his protest if he wasn't hauled away?

[k-robjoe]

33. Democracy Now

Here is Ray McGovern on Democracy Now :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSiBpqk_93U&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The way he tells it, it seems like he didn´t get any warning.

But anyhow, there should be no reason to be this brutal, don´t you agree?

[MrMickeysMom]

34. He didn't say a word... so the disrupter wasn't Ray McGovern..

... was it?

So, we should think it's alright to "haul" away a person who opens up his 78 year old mouth the for the first time as he's being brutalized (unless you didn't look at the contusions on his arms) and "hauled away"?

The point, which you still do not appear to get is that he DOES have rights, and he WAS NOT the disrupter.

[hack89]

35. Standing in front of people as a distraction is still a distraction.

If I had been there, it would have been to see and hear Clinton, not look at a protester.

I doubt you will find any legal basis for your belief that he had the "right" to do what he did. It was a private venue and the government was not involved.

[MrMickeysMom]

36. Horsefeathers...

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. He has rights under the constitution to protest. If he was in anybody's way and they complained, it's a brutal way to deal with someone's constitutional rights.

"If I had been there", blah, blah, blah.... Make sure you're fitted for you nose ring.

[hack89]

37. Lets look at case law

The right to peaceably assemble is one of the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment, but that freedom does not necessarily extend to private property.

The 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, discussed below, said the U.S. Constitution does not give individuals an absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression. Since that decision, most states that have encountered this issue have followed the Court's view.

Finally in Hudgens v. NLRB (1976), the Court explicitly rejected Logan Valley, stating, "if it was not clear before, … the rationale of Logan Valley did not survive the Court's decision in the Lloyd case." The Supreme Court's finding in Hudgens incontestably favored private-property rights over individual free expression.

A state may, therefore, in the exercise of its power to regulate, adopt reasonable restrictions on private property, including granting greater freedom to individuals to use such property, so long as the restrictions do not amount to a taking without just compensation or contravene any other federal constitutional provision. (In this instance it would be a "taking" of a property owner's right to exclude others.)

Since DC is not a state and therefore cannot grant more expansive free speech rights and George Washington University is a private school, there are no constitutional issues involved.


http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=private_property

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

39. You are getting somewhat incoherent

and personal insults are not allowed here.

I think we are done.

[MrMickeysMom]

40. That is what I'd expect from you at this point...

You couldn't convince me, let alone anyone else who understood what rights Americans have under the constitution.

Of course, personal insults are not allowed here... I honestly thought ANONE who would try to convince this forum by what you said MUST bet have no other option than to get in line for their nose ring!

Have a wonderful evening. You're right... we are done.

[apocalypsehow]

42. Except, you lost the argument, by even the most generous standard of allowance in this thing we call

"debate."

Then there's this:

"Of course, personal insults are not allowed here"


"I honestly thought ANONE (Sic) who would try to convince this forum by what you said MUST bet have no other option than to get in line for their nose ring!"

:eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

8. Your right to peacefully protest - got that? PEACEFULLY is what the Constitution says - ends where

my right to free speech begins. Secretary Clinton was invited to a venue for the express purpose of allowing her to exercise her right of free speech to opine on matters about which she is concerned. Mr. McGovern was interfering with that right with his buffoonish antics, and after politely being asked to cease & desist, was quite properly removed from the venue. The removal was 100% legitimate.

[BeFree]

9. heh

Yeah right, free speech zones and all that. How bushco can they be?

There is no law about 'No Standing' that I ever heard.
They just made it up as they went along.

Besides, Hilary could have said: Take you hands off that man! She didn't.

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. Standing up and turning your back isn't peaceful?? In what world?

:shrug:

He didn't make any noise, didn't try to disrupt or heckle her, he merely stood and turned his back.

"Your right to protest ends where my right to free speech begins"... What a load of horse shit! :rofl: Can you get any goofier?

[apocalypsehow]

12. It surprises me little that you consider the right freedom of speech to be "horseshit" - not one bit

It also comes as no earth-shattering revelation that you are either unable or unwilling to post a reply to someone whose opinion you disagree with without indulging in a personal attack - again, not one bit.

But your argument is with the Constitution of the United States, not I. Perhaps you could use some of the free speech we all currently enjoy to petition your Congressman to introduce a constitutional amendment repealing the 1st amendment.

As to the rest, the bottom line is that he was asked to cease his disruptive behavior in a venue where Secretary Clinton was giving a speech, or leave. He refused to do so. He was then quite properly escorted from the premises.

Again:

Your right to protest ends where my right to free speech begins.

Don't like it? Refer to my statement above, and get busy drafting that proposal for your district congressman and/or U.S. Senator to review. :thumbsup:

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. Your lack of comprehension doesn't surprise me either...

Please point out where I said I consider the right to free speech to be horse shit. I'll be waiting...

What's horse shit is your little "your rights end where mine begin" meme. It's bullshit, pure and simple. It's not my problem if you can't figure that out.

Don't like it?? Get busy writing the Supreme Court and the lower Courts who ruled that the psychotic Phelps Klan has the right to protest at a fallen soldier's funeral and fill them in with all your glorious wisdom, dude. You know how they get dealt with now? They get blocked by the Patriot Guard Riders, a group that I am a proud member of.

Sorry dude, but no, my rights don't end where yours begin, our rights overlap. Once you realize that you'll have a better understanding about the way things really work in this world, as opposed to the fantasyland you apparently dwell in.

[apocalypsehow]

14. Happy to oblige, with a handy link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=308363&mesg_id=308398

Myself, I usually remember what I've written/posted on DU within the last hour or so, but I understand mileage on that score can vary.

"What's horse shit is your little "your rights end where mine begin" meme...the Supreme Court and the lower Courts who ruled that the psychotic Phelps Klan has the right to protest at a fallen soldier's funeral and...."

Wrong. Point me to the Supreme Court decision that said Phelps & Co. had the right to protest inside the church building where the funeral was being held, and while the funeral was in progress? No evasions, no walk-backs, no goal-post shifting, just flat out a cite and a link to the decision that established that precedent. Since no such precedent exists, I won't be looking for anything more than another round of personal attacks, just like you signed off with the last time:

"as opposed to the fantasyland you apparently dwell in"

Wash, rinse, repeat.


And right on cue,

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. Talk about walk-backs and moving goal-posts...

:rofl:

It's your claim, YOU show where the psychotic Phelps klan ever tried to picket inside a church. They do, however, picket during graveside services.

Is it just too hard for you to admit that you were wrong, and that my rights DON'T end where yours begin? I've already proved that to you, you're the one stumbling around, building straw men and moving goal posts...

Just admit you were wrong, dude. I'll make it easier... just admit you were mistaken or even that you misspoke, because you were clearly incorrect. There's no shame in admitting you were wrong, it happens to everyone once in a while...

:thumbsup:

[apocalypsehow]

18. Yeah, let's talk about them alrighty:

"Get busy writing the Supreme Court and the lower Courts who ruled that the psychotic Phelps Klan has the right to protest at a fallen soldier's funeral and fill them in with all your glorious wisdom, dude. You know how they get dealt with now?"

And yet another assertion of yours bites the dust (that was your post, you know that, right? :shrug:): I guess what we're left with is asking everyone to believe this most recent assertion and its changed premise vis-a-vis the previous ones, rather than their lying eyes...

"It's your claim, YOU show where the psychotic Phelps klan"

Incorrect. It was you, not I, who made the explicit comparison between Mr. McGovern's buffoonish antics inside Jack Morton auditorium, and the repulsive protest tactics of the Phelps clan outside of military funerals, i.e., not actually on the property of the institution where the event that they are protesting is being held.

As shown, this assertion has no merit. As further shown, you have no legal or constitutional citation or precedent to cite in support of either this faulty comparison, or that the authorities handled Mr. McGovern with anything but legal due process, and justified restraint and arrest.

So, what is your argument reduced to? This:

"Just admit you were wrong, dude. I'll make it easier... just admit you were mistaken or even that you misspoke, because you were clearly incorrect. There's no shame in admitting you were wrong, it happens to everyone once in a while..."

Which is colloquially known as simply declaring victory and going home. Known in simpler terms as nada; zip; you got nuthin'.

Either, or.

And with that precise summation, I believe we can truly declare that the factual part of this discussion has concluded. All that we'll see going forward from here, I wager, is more bald declarations that amount to "I wun, I wun!!!!11" or a further string of irrelevant personal attacks. Or both.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. No, you were wrong, and you still are..

You're the one still building straw men and moving goal posts. My main point was that it's bullshit that "my rights end where yours begin". You were wrong. Period. Admit it.

You should also read post 17 again... this part: “Phelps-Roper presents a viable argument that those who protest or picket at or near a military funeral wish to reach an audience that can only be addressed at such occasion and to convey to and through such an audience a particular message.”

The same should apply to politicians/political actions. Should it or should it not? Also, a political speech is a public event, whereas a funeral is normally viewed as a private event for family & friends.


"And with that precise summation, I believe we can truly declare that the factual part of this discussion has concluded."

Yes, the facts went out the window as soon as you stated that "my rights end where yours begin". You didn't provide any facts then, instead offering your opinion (which in all honesty I can say I understand what you're saying, and can even agree with it on principal, but it's still just our opinion, not fact).

:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

23. Nah, I'm pretty much spot-on. As I have been since you entered the field of discussion above.

But's it nice to see my prediction above was so easily and readily verified:

"All that we'll see going forward from here, I wager, is more bald declarations that amount to "I wun, I wun!!!!11" or a further string of irrelevant personal attacks. Or both."

That's what your latest reply pretty much amounts to, and, I continue to wager, will keep doing.

All too easy.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. You're free to believe whatever you want, but the facts don't bear you out..

Your assertion that "your rights end where mine begin" is bullshit, Pure and simple. It's an opinion, not fact. Facts prove otherwise. That you can't deal with it isn't my problem... By all means though, keep building your straw men and knocking them down.

[apocalypsehow]

28. That facts do, clearly, bear me out, as any honest observer of this repartee plainly sees. What is

playing out now is a precise episode of what I predicted above:

""All that we'll see going forward from here, I wager, is more bald declarations that amount to "I wun, I wun!!!!11" or a further string of irrelevant personal attacks. Or both."

That, and a desperate desire on your part to have the famed "last word" - as if the last one to hit "post message," regardless of what has gone on previously, is the "winner" of the "debate."

And I put "debate" in quotation marks because that word is a stretch as a description of what has gone on here. What has occurred here has been more like I post facts, and you counter with either personal attacks or "I wun, I wun!!!!!!111" declarations that are void of foundational credibility.

[apocalypsehow]

24. Now, a little line-by-line review:

"You're the one still building straw men and moving goal posts."

Here's an actual (linked) definition of a "straw man" argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Here's one that defines "moving the goalposts":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

I suggest you study closely the information provided at both links before you label something either a "strawman" or accuse someone of "moving the goalposts" - you'll find it helpful.

"My main point was that it's bullshit that "my rights end where yours begin"."

No, it was not. Your "main point" was that Mr. McGovern and the Phelp's clan were in constitutional situations regarding their various forms of "protest" that were legally analogous. They are not, as has been shown.

"You were wrong. Period. Admit it."

To the contrary, I was quite correct. But you go right on believing whatever you want, if it helps.

"You should also read post 17 again... this part: “Phelps-Roper presents a viable argument that those who protest or picket at or near a military funeral wish to reach an audience that can only be addressed at such occasion and to convey to and through such an audience a particular message.”

Irrelevant to the issue of Mr. McGovern and his buffoonish antics in the Jack Morton auditorium - which is what this entire sub-thread debate was initiated over, at your behest.

"The same should apply to politicians/political actions. Should it or should it not? Also, a political speech is a public event, whereas a funeral is normally viewed as a private event for family & friends."

More irrelevancy, since the issue is not whether Mr. McGovern can protest just like the Phelp's clan does, but whether he can disrupt someone else's delivered remarks without subjecting himself to arrest. He cannot.

"Yes, the facts went out the window as soon as you stated that "my rights end where yours begin". You didn't provide any facts then, instead offering your opinion (which in all honesty I can say I understand what you're saying, and can even agree with it on principal, but it's still just our opinion, not fact)."

I have consistently made factual statements throughout this charming little back & forth: your inability or refusal to recognize them is the issue at hand at the juncture we find ourselves at.

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. You sure do have a hard time admitting you were wrong, don't you?

"No, it was not. Your "main point" was that Mr. McGovern and the Phelp's clan were in constitutional situations regarding their various forms of "protest" that were legally analogous. They are not, as has been shown."

I believe I know my point better than you do. The rest of your post is pure nusiance/distraction blather trying to conceal the fact that you were wrong. My rights DO NOT end where yours begin. Period. I showed you that beyond a shadow of a doubt. End of discussion. The only thing that has been irrelevant is your subsequent comments on this matter. You can try to soothe your bruised ego all you want, but it's not helping your case any. Have fun puffing yourself back up, but you'll be talking to yourself...

[apocalypsehow]

27. If it helps to keep baldly asserting that when the facts do not bear you out, feel free to do so.

However, it is nothing more than a reiteration of what I stated would continue to occur above:

""All that we'll see going forward from here, I wager, is more bald declarations that amount to "I wun, I wun!!!!11" or a further string of irrelevant personal attacks. Or both."

[apocalypsehow]

15. Oh, and lookee here: Snyder v. Phelps hasn't even been decided yet.

"Snyder v. Phelps, a case currently under consideration by the Supreme Court of the United States, deals with whether the free speech rights of protesters are more important than the privacy rights of mourners attending funerals"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

So much for "Get busy writing the Supreme Court and the lower Courts who ruled that the psychotic Phelps Klan has the right to protest at a fallen soldier's funeral and fill them in with all your glorious wisdom".

Not that even if they did so it would make a whit of difference regarding the larger point of whether they would be able to do so inside the church (it wouldn't), but I thought I'd help you with your fact-checking. Call it my good deed for the day - I accept your thanks in advance.

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. Snyder v. Phelps is a different story, where Snyder is claiming Phelps violated

his freedom to practice religion.

Meanwhile, we have Phelps-Roper v. Nixon:

Phelps-Roper challenged Missouri’s recently enacted funeral-protest law in July 2006, contending that it violated the First Amendment. The Missouri law banned picketing within 300 feet of funeral processions. In 2007, a federal judge denied Phelps-Roper an injunction to stop enforcement of the law. On appeal, the 8th Circuit initially affirmed the judge’s ruling but reversed it in a subsequent ruling in October 2008 and granted relief to Phelps-Roper.

The 8th Circuit panel in Phelps-Roper v. Nixon determined that by defining “funeral” to include “processions,” the law provided “citizens with no guidance as to what locations will be protest and picket-free zones and at what times.” The court also noted that the law failed “to limit itself to activity that targets, disrupts or is otherwise related to the funeral, memorial service or procession.”

The court also determined that “Phelps-Roper presents a viable argument that those who protest or picket at or near a military funeral wish to reach an audience that can only be addressed at such occasion and to convey to and through such an audience a particular message.”

The state of Missouri appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied review on June 29, 2009
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=funeral_protests

The Supreme Court declined to review the lower Court's ruling, thereby concurring with their judgement.

Look at this one again, very closely:

"presents a viable argument that those who protest or picket at or near a military funeral wish to reach an audience that can only be addressed at such occasion and to convey to and through such an audience a particular message.”

Now let's replace "military funeral" with "political event"... see where this is going? If you wish to protest a politician, or the action of a politician, isn't it prudent to go where said politician is?

[apocalypsehow]

19. More obfuscation and changed premises. You stated *explicitly*:

"Get busy writing the Supreme Court and the lower Courts who ruled that the psychotic Phelps Klan has the right to protest at a fallen soldier's funeral and fill them in with all your glorious wisdom, dude" <-----------Your typed words.

It was clearly shown that the Supreme Court did not "rule" on any such case, so now you resort to obfuscatory semantics.

Please try again.

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. When the Supreme Court denied to review, they sided with the Lower Court

.. that means that they ruled that the Lower Court's opinion held merit and they would not overturn it. Reviewing it would be a waste of time... there's nothing "semantic" about it, that's just they way it is. What's so hard to understand about that? :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

22. Irrelevant and non-responsive to this discussion - but then you know that. Behold:

In reply #11 up yonder you stated the following:

"Standing up and turning your back isn't peaceful?? In what world? He didn't make any noise, didn't try to disrupt or heckle her, he merely stood and turned his back.
"Your right to protest ends where my right to free speech begins"... What a load of horse shit!"

You followed that up with this bon mot:

"What's horse shit is your little "your rights end where mine begin" meme. It's bullshit, pure and simple. It's not my problem if you can't figure that out."

Don't like it?? Get busy writing the Supreme Court and the lower Courts who ruled that the psychotic Phelps Klan has the right to protest at a fallen soldier's funeral and fill them in with all your glorious wisdom, dude. You know how they get dealt with now?"

This was entirely within the context of your misinformed assertion that Mr. McGovern had the right to "protest," i.e., disrupt, Secretary Clinton's speech in that auditorium with the same legal authority that Phelp's repulsive crew currently does outside - or, to reverse the situation, that nutty Freddy & Co. had the same right to stand up in a church where a military funeral was taking place and "protest" and, that, further, that kind of conduct was constitutionally protected.

The comparison was yours, and since the only context in which such a thing could remotely be legal is the current case pending before the Supreme Court, I simply pointed out your manifest error: Snyder v. Phelps is still under consideration. Thus, it was shown that your initial assertion had not a legal leg to stand on.

Your response? To change the subject: suddenly, you are not interested in discussing your initial flawed (as shown) assertion that Mr. McGovern and the Phelp's clan were constitutionally on the same page in their respective encounters with the law, but rather in discussing an issue that was not even brought up until you saw the error you had made: the issue of the lower court that ruled Phelp's protesters could stage their smarmy little shows outside of military funerals.

True, you tried a partial walk-back and goal-post shifting in reply #16: "They do, however, picket during graveside services."

But even that only obfuscates, not clarifies, the matter. Which is precisely what you want, because it has been shown that your initial assertion was simply incorrect and in factual error.

It was a nice try. But you might want to give it another go.

[hack89]

41. There is no absolute right to free speech on private property.

even political speech.

He had no constitutional right to do what he did.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=private_property

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate