Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RememberSchiff

President Trump to visit 2017 Jamboree

Recommended Posts

There's a fine line when it comes to censorship.  Everyone is Constitutionally guaranteed free speech.  Now, whether someone is allowed to speak at an event, or anywhere else for that matter, constitutes censorship.  Free speech allows for censorship.  But if the President is NOT invited to a traditional invite as Honorary President, it by no means restricts his free speech as to why he thinks the invite was denied.  That would not bode well for the BSA.  "We were afraid of what he might say in front of the boys."  A Scout is Brave.

 

Somehow the traditional grade school playground lesson of "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but nobody's words can hurt me," doesn't seem to have made it into today's PC culture.

 

If people wouldn't make a big deal about this nobody would have cared. 

 

There weren't any protests within the Jambo as to the President's comments.  A Scout is Courteous.

 

Like the other thread Jambo Vent, it was more an issue of the parents and adults than the boys themselves.  They had a blast at Jambo.  So, what more can one expect.

 

Sometimes silence is the best Free Speech!

 

I didn't think what the President was altogether relevant to the boys,not necessarily harmful, but that's my personal opinion.  I put this in because I am allowed Free Speech.  What anyone wants to make of it,that is their problem, not mine.  What I say is irrelevant to Free Speech, what others make of it is not my problem, it's theirs.  They may go into a rant frenzy about it, but it still doesn't make it my problem.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not infringement of free speech. Not being invited somewhere doesn't violate anyone's rights. The BSA chooses whoever they want to speak at events. It's customary to invite the current President, but it's their right to not invite him or anyone else. 

 

It is entirely BSA's right to invite who they want. However, they risk their "non-partisan" stance if they waiver on when they invite a sitting President to speak merely based on the color of the party to which he belongs.

 

Picking and choosing based on what someone might say is censorship.  Especially with a 100+ year standing tradition glaringly obvious as to the rationale behind the choosing.

 

I am not sure I call it censorship. They have the right to invite who they wish. However, they clearly can no longer claim to be non-partisan if they only invite people that might say what the BSA leadership wants to hear. They also risk alienating half their membership who may disagree with BSA's stance on things. Any wonder why FOS donations are down drastically?

Edited by Col. Flagg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BSA was stuck.  They had to know they were going to get a speech like they got.  But they had to invite him--BSA doesn't want to start down the road of not inviting a POTUS, for whatever reason.  I am sure there were plenty of folks who didn't want to invite 44, or 43, or 42...but BSA can't open that door.

 

I think the folks who want to blame BSA for DT's remarks probably had an axe to grind with BSA anyway.  I think most people gifted with logic can separate the person speaking from the audience and attribute the remarks (and responsibility for them) appropriately.  And to those who can't I am not sure it is worth the effort to try or to accommodate them.  I do wish our attendees had limited their cheering to the appropriate portions of the speech and had avoided boos.  I have no idea how that could possibly have been managed but I still can wish for it, or better that it wouldn't have been necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Censorship, abridging free speech, or creating a chilling effect is not illegal or a constitutional violation unless done by the government. Ironically, the president himself might be in violation of abridging some ppls free speech guarantees when he blocked them on twitter. As president, an agent of the government he may not abridge individual rights by censorsing them, but an organization (even this website) can censor whatever type of speech or individuals if wants.

 

technically, the 1st Amendment merely restricts Congress from making any laws that prohibits the exercise of free speech.  POTUS blocking someone on a private service (twitter) isn't a constitutional violation (which you ironically state shortly after you claim constitutional violations via twitter), especially since the individual can simply create a new, free account and resume communications.  If this is your argument, then the White House restricting anyone from entering, at any time is a constitutional violation... which is simply not true. 

BSA blocking who or what is said is very much censorship.  It's simply not 1st Amendment violating censorship in the constitutional sense of the word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BSA was stuck.  They had to know they were going to get a speech like they got.  But they had to invite him--BSA doesn't want to start down the road of not inviting a POTUS, for whatever reason.  I am sure there were plenty of folks who didn't want to invite 44, or 43, or 42...but BSA can't open that door.

 

Well, by sending out that press release BSA just opened that door. Now, all it takes is for the Twitterverse to go crazy about something and BSA will be vilified for either making or not making a statement on the subject. They should of just kept quiet. Now all it take is for a group to complain and BSA will be compelled to respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

technically, the 1st Amendment merely restricts Congress from making any laws that prohibits the exercise of free speech.  POTUS blocking someone on a private service (twitter) isn't a constitutional violation (which you ironically state shortly after you claim constitutional violations via twitter), especially since the individual can simply create a new, free account and resume communications.  If this is your argument, then the White House restricting anyone from entering, at any time is a constitutional violation... which is simply not true. 

 

BSA blocking who or what is said is very much censorship.  It's simply not 1st Amendment violating censorship in the constitutional sense of the word.

 

The 14th amendment extended the reach beyond just congress. Recent case law also is on point... Borreca v. Fasi, Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors are just two examples. As far as your statement that this argument would make restricting anyone from entering...a violation. No. Restrictions on speech are permissible on the basis of time, place and manner, it is not permissible based on content. Public forum doctrine analysis is necessary, and is what is done on a case by case basis by the courts.

 

I agree with your final statement, my earlier post did acknowledge it, albeit clumsily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World Jambo is in a couple of years. What's the protocol for those in terms of presidential invites? Think Trump will be asked to speak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump: " I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful."

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/01/trump-wall-street-journal-interview-full-transcript-241214

 

He also mentioned in a WSJ interview that he got a standign ovation. The audience stood for him the whole time. 

 

Even through there are no seats there. 

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also mentioned in a WSJ interview that he got a standign ovation. The audience stood for him the whole time. 

 

Even through there are no seats there. 

 

:rolleyes:

 

Par for the course.

 

Specifically the par 72 New Course at the Trump National Golf Club, Bedminster, New Jersey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Pence might be asked. :)

 

One can only assume something bad is going to happen to our President?  And how is that lesson going over in the scout units?  We have enough calls for something bad to happen, but then a coup might allow him to survive along with his family, which up until now has always been off-limits to trash in the media.  I may not agree with everything he does, but then at 67, I haven't agreed with any president 100% of the time either.  I suffered through Carter and Obama, Nixon and Regan.  Is this the lesson in Citizenship we want to promote?

 

I realize this is in the Issues and Politics section, but a Constitutionally elected president doesn't need the flack coming his way.  A Scout is Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, and Brave just to mention a few.  How does any of them suggest something bad happening to sitting president.  There's enough plots out there right now thinking the unthinkable and if history repeats itself, an assassination of a president, amid tense diplomacy,on the brink of war, as the country was torn apart by riots is a good thing, guess again.  I lived through it and it wasn't pretty.  Is that the legacy one wishes to leave behind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...