Don't taze me ! charges dropped

[Michael Tee]

<<Last time I checked, a private school lecture hall was far from being a "public place."

<<Do the private colleges in Canada let the general public just wander through all their classrooms at any hour of the day?>>

I would expect it was a public place by law because a public lecture was being held there to which the public was probably invited.  If the guy was a student at the institution, it wouldn't matter anyway, because he was exercising a student's implied right to question people lecturing at his school.  Either way, it was a brutal assault on freedom of speech, not surprising in a country on a long, slow slide into fascism.

[Amianthus]

because he was exercising a student's implied right to question people lecturing at his school.

"Implied right"?

ROFL

[Michael Tee]

I guess I just don't get the joke.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That would be because it isn't a funny ha-ha joke.

I doubt if he rolled even once on the floor. I'd lay moneyt that not even so much as a chuckle was heard, actually.

[Amianthus]

I'd lay moneyt that not even so much as a chuckle was heard, actually.

You lose. Paypal will be fine.

[Xavier_Onassis]

"I'd lay money" is what we call the conditional tense. I would lay money if I were a betting man, but alas, I am not.

I still fail to see what could be funny about this.

I continue to doubt both the laughter and the rolling about in mirth upon the floor.

[Amianthus]

I still fail to see what could be funny about this.

A phrase like "implied right" coming from someone who doesn't give much credence to some "explicit rights".

[Xavier_Onassis]

A phrase like "implied right" coming from someone who doesn't give much credence to some "explicit rights".

=======================================================================
Consider the scenario. John Kerry gives a speech and takes questions from the audience. A mike is provided fopr members of the public to ask questions of Kerry.

This guy was in the audience. No one questioned his right to be in the audience. As a member of said audience, how could he NOT consider himself welcome to ask questions of Kerry.

Kerry said that he would answer the question.

Very shortly afterward, someone turned off the guy's mike and goons came, carried him off and zapped him with a tazer.

[Amianthus]

This guy was in the audience. No one questioned his right to be in the audience. As a member of said audience, how could he NOT consider himself welcome to ask questions of Kerry.

Kerry said that he would answer the question.

Very shortly afterward, someone turned off the guy's mike and goons came, carried him off and zapped him with a tazer.

I think you have the order a bit wrong. He was told that there would be no more questions (because there was a time limit), and he then pushed his way to the front of the line. Even after he was told a few more times that time for questions had run out, he continued with his diatribe (and not asking any questions). He wasn't hit with the taser until he was warned a couple of times that if he continued to resist he would be tasered.

I think he got plenty of warnings.

[Michael Tee]

<<He was told that there would be no more questions (because there was a time limit), and he then pushed his way to the front of the line. Even after he was told a few more times that time for questions had run out, he continued with his diatribe (and not asking any questions). He wasn't hit with the taser until he was warned a couple of times that if he continued to resist he would be tasered.>>

Classic definition of exercizing one's freedom of speech. 

<< . . . he was told . . . that time for questions had run out . . .>>

. . . so continuing to ask questions [or in Ami's version, continuing to spew diatribe] is a reason to forcibly remove him and taser him for resisting?  Out-rucking-fageous.

[Amianthus]

. . . so continuing to ask questions [or in Ami's version, continuing to spew diatribe] is a reason to forcibly remove him and taser him for resisting?

Lots of court cases that show you cannot exercise freedom of speech in a private setting if the owner of the setting objects.

If came into your house and subjected to you to a barrage of questions and refused to stop when you asked me to, do you think you have the right to have me arrested? Or does my freedom of speech mean I can go anywhere and say anything?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Lots of court cases that show you cannot exercise freedom of speech in a private setting if the owner of the setting objects.

===============================================================================
Kerry was the Man of the Hour, and he told the guy that he would answer his question. But the guy was dragged away (Why? he was no threat to anyone standing in front of a dead mike) and zapped.

Kerry was gutless, and should have asked the cops to cease and desist from their goonish behavior, but there was no reason to grab this guy or to taze him. He was no threat to anyone.

Who was this owner that supposedly objected? I saw no mention of any such a person.

If anyone ordered the cops to attack this guy, he has not revealed his identity. My guess is that there is such a person, and he is simply ashamed or afraid of reprecussions.

How would it have ruined anyone's day to allow this guy to continue speaking to no one in front of a dead mike? He was unarmed. He was not dangerous. The logic behind attacking him reminds me of what was done at Waco to the Kereshis.

Why was  this violence necessary?

Is there ever any reason to use UNNECESSARY violence?

[Michael Tee]

<<If came into your house and subjected to you to a barrage of questions and refused to stop when you asked me to, do you think you have the right to have me arrested? Or does my freedom of speech mean I can go anywhere and say anything?>>

If I were sponsoring a public lecture in my house and had invited the public to hear it, the situation could well be more complex than you pretend.  There is not doubt that when the public lecture came to an end, and the speaker and audience departed, I would have the right to have you ejected if you did not leave voluntarily.  However, prior to that moment, I think there's a gray area.  Maybe if you had put up warnings to the public, "Free speech can NOT be exercised on my premises, it must stop when I or the management says it must stop," you would be on stronger grounds.  But then, who would put up such signs in the first place?  It is like inviting people to a lecture but telling them, Sit Down, Shut Up and No Questions Except What We Permit."  Few members of the general public would be attracted to such a gathering.  Implicitly, I think, the nature of the event gave rise to an assumption that one would be allowed to question, and even to heckle.

However I think you are on even weaker ground because this was an academic institution and not a private residence.  Also, I believe the guy that was tasered was a student at that institution.

[_JS]

I still fail to see what could be funny about this.

A phrase like "implied right" coming from someone who doesn't give much credence to some "explicit rights".

Could be thinking of me.

What are "explicit rights" anyway?

[Amianthus]

What are "explicit rights" anyway?

Ones that are enumerated.