Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Was the government right in this instance?
The government is wrong, and violated a citizen's right to free speech 8%  8%  [ 1 ]
The government was right to cancel his appearing in the concert 75%  75%  [ 9 ]
Just show the results 17%  17%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 12

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

30 Apr 2012, 5:41 pm

http://gma.yahoo.com/ted-nugent-booted- ... itics.html

Quote:
Commanders at the Fort Knox Army base in Kentucky cut Nugent from their annual summer concert after the controversial rocker told the National Rifle Association he will "either be dead or in jail by this time next year" if Obama is re-elected and blasted members of the administration, saying conservatives should "chop their heads off."

"After learning of opening act Ted Nugent's recent public comments about the president of the United States, Fort Knox leadership decided to cancel his performance on the installation," Army officials posted on the base's Facebook page.

Nugent said the concert cancellation was an "insult" and maintained that he was merely exercising his First Amendment rights when he told the NRA convention that Obama was running a "vile, evil, America-hating administration."

"To think that there's a bureaucrat in the United States Army that would consider the use or abuse of First Amendment rights in determining who is going to perform at an Army base is an insult and defiles the sacrifices of those heroes who fought for the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights," Nugent told the Associated Press.


Is it legitimate for the government to cancel someone from appearing in a concert who has made some rather hateful and vitriolic statements about the government? Or, does the cancelation amount to a violation of Mr. Nugent's First Amendment rights?



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

30 Apr 2012, 5:55 pm

Considering that the Commander in Chief is Barack Obama, what he did was to attack the "boss" of the armed forces. I don't view it as attacking someone's freedom of speech to say "Your views are incompatible with ours thus we do not want to have your performing here".

I'd love for it to be true on a level though, since it would require the Drug Tzar and parts of the administration responsible for the "War on Drugs" to be Norml members.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

30 Apr 2012, 6:04 pm

The First Amendment wrote:
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.


It doesn't say that the government has to hire him--only that Congress can't make a law abridging his right to say what he wants. Since there isn't a law about who may or may not perform, the government seems to have the right to cancel his show.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

30 Apr 2012, 6:07 pm

They are within their rights to cancel his show. Bit of a dick move (an understandable one though but it is perfectly legal.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

30 Apr 2012, 8:40 pm

Still, Mr. Nugent can publicly proclaim that his First Amendment rights have been violated, and that canceling his performance at an Army base was an insult and defiled the sacrifices of those heroes who fought for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Even if he has no court case, he has his public opinion case, and will probably be performing at the Republican National Convention this summer. It is unfortunate, but hate speech does sell in America. If you can't sell sex, then next most profitable commodity is hate.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

30 Apr 2012, 9:46 pm

abacacus wrote:
They are within their rights to cancel his show. Bit of a dick move (an understandable one though but it is perfectly legal.


Nugent seems like a bit of a dick though. I'd love to go to one of his BBQs though, the dude is a bbq master.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

30 Apr 2012, 9:56 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Still, Mr. Nugent can publicly proclaim that his First Amendment rights have been violated, and that canceling his performance at an Army base was an insult and defiled the sacrifices of those heroes who fought for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Even if he has no court case, he has his public opinion case, and will probably be performing at the Republican National Convention this summer. It is unfortunate, but hate speech does sell in America. If you can't sell sex, then next most profitable commodity is hate.


Very true


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,485
Location: temperate zone

30 Apr 2012, 10:29 pm

TM wrote:
Considering that the Commander in Chief is Barack Obama, what he did was to attack the "boss" of the armed forces. I don't view it as attacking someone's freedom of speech to say "Your views are incompatible with ours thus we do not want to have your performing here".

I'd love for it to be true on a level though, since it would require the Drug Tzar and parts of the administration responsible for the "War on Drugs" to be Norml members.


Its not that his "views" are different from those of the "boss".

Its that he is advocating the murder of the commander in chief of the armed forces- and still expects to perform FOR the armed services at a concert.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

30 Apr 2012, 10:36 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
TM wrote:
Considering that the Commander in Chief is Barack Obama, what he did was to attack the "boss" of the armed forces. I don't view it as attacking someone's freedom of speech to say "Your views are incompatible with ours thus we do not want to have your performing here".

I'd love for it to be true on a level though, since it would require the Drug Tzar and parts of the administration responsible for the "War on Drugs" to be Norml members.


Its not that his "views" are different from those of the "boss".

Its that he is advocating the murder of the commander in chief of the armed forces- and still expects to perform FOR the armed services at a concert.


In that case I hope he's on drugs, because if he's not, he's got problems.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

01 May 2012, 9:15 am

Ted Nugent wrote:
"To think that there's a bureaucrat in the United States Army that would consider the use or abuse of First Amendment rights in determining who is going to perform at an Army base is an insult and defiles the sacrifices of those heroes who fought for the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights," Nugent told the Associated Press.


Why do so many people mistakenly believe that freedom of speech means "I have the right to say whatever stupid sh*t pops into my head, anywhere I want, without any repercussions whatsoever"? If people don't like his conduct, they don't have to hire him.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 May 2012, 9:19 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Ted Nugent wrote:
"To think that there's a bureaucrat in the United States Army that would consider the use or abuse of First Amendment rights in determining who is going to perform at an Army base is an insult and defiles the sacrifices of those heroes who fought for the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights," Nugent told the Associated Press.


Why do so many people mistakenly believe that freedom of speech means "I have the right to say whatever stupid sh*t pops into my head, anywhere I want, without any repercussions whatsoever"?


It's kind of what it implies, but then again most people as I've said before are idiots. There really is no such thing as free speech or free expression quite frankly, as Bertrand Russell said "It is clear that thought is not free when the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to earn a living."

Free speech is one of those illusions, same as democracy or free will.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

01 May 2012, 10:00 am

I love how this draft dodging p*ssy has the nerve to say anyone's defiling the sacrifices of the troops. They should've made him a sniper instead since he can do just fine without going to the latrine for weeks. And since when did the first amendment take away an organization's right to not have you perform for them?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

01 May 2012, 10:37 am

They can have whoever they want to preform. I do think it is a little stupid however that they invited Nugent in the first place considering this isn't even close to the worst thing he's said. He's known for being pretty out there and saying offensive things.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

01 May 2012, 4:24 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Why do so many people mistakenly believe that freedom of speech means "I have the right to say whatever stupid sh*t pops into my head, anywhere I want, without any repercussions whatsoever"? If people don't like his conduct, they don't have to hire him.


Well, there was the celebrated case of Jerry Falwell vs. Larry Flynt

Quote:
In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.


You can say what you want about the President, but, especially since 9/11, perceived threats are taken very seriously.

You can also say what you want about someone like Jerry Falwell, but don't expect him to make you a deacon.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

01 May 2012, 4:48 pm

Jacoby wrote:
They can have whoever they want to preform. I do think it is a little stupid however that they invited Nugent in the first place considering this isn't even close to the worst thing he's said. He's known for being pretty out there and saying offensive things.


Exactly. It's like they just now found out that Uncle Ted is a *bit* off kilter and is basically only famous anymore because he says crazy things. The man is just a bit intense for my tastes, even when he actually says something I agree with.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,901
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

02 May 2012, 12:32 am

Barack Obama is the commander-in-chief, so the military has a responsibility to stick by their supreme commander. And if someone as soft in the head as Nugent questions the president's very loyalty to America, they have every right to cancel him.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer