New York's Central Park gives musicians the boot

[MasterKiller]

The President does not set Secret Service policies. MK cited 'free speech zones' used by President Bush. But it wasn't Bush who created the zones.

Of course why Bush was brought into a discussion on music banning in Central Park is beyond me. But since he was, we at least need to get the facts straight.

Your whole argument is a nonissue., anyway. The musicians weren't banned. They are free to play in designated areas, just like every American is free to exercise their freedom of speech in designated areas, which is upheld by the Supreme Court.

[BJJ-Blue]

Your whole argument is a nonissue., anyway. The musicians weren't banned. They are free to play in designated areas, just like every American is free to exercise their freedom of speech in designated areas, which is upheld by the Supreme Court.

I believe the Supreme Court case(s) involve Presidential visits and things like protests, conventions, and miltary funeral protests (ie special events), not everyday public property usage.

[MasterKiller]

I believe the Supreme Court case(s) involve Presidential visits and things like protests, conventions, and miltary funeral protests (ie special events), not everyday public property usage.

Is it your contention, then, that the rights of the musicians supercede those of non-musicians who would like to be in the park without being bothered by music?

[BJJ-Blue]

Is it your contention, then, that the rights of the musicians supercede those of non-musicians who would like to be in the park without being bothered by music?

What?

If you read the article, you would see no one was calling for any bans at all. The person who was defending it said there were complaints, but didn't back that assertion up. And if it was wanted, why didn't they gather signatures and put it on the ballot for the whole city to decide, instead of just letting a few elected officials implement the ban?

[Syn7]

One more thing. Why can't you just call a wrong a wrong? Why do you always have to play the 'But the other side does it too' card?

hey man, you do that all the time... like ALL THE TIME...

[Syn7]

Whatever. Let's stay on topic; what's your take/opinion on the banning of music in Central Park? Do you support the ban?

lol... he just proved that you lied... here you say that you dont have legal issue with gay marriage yet he quoted you saying otherwise... and instead of conceding like you insist everyone else do when arguing with you, you did what you accuse others of doing... dodging the part that shows you wrong and changing the subject(even if it is the main topic)... i dont have issue with you saying "lets stay on topic" but it should have been after you explained the lie you were just caught in...

[Syn7]

i love that show arrested developement... they had the one episode where the sister was protesting and the free speech zone was a lil chain link cage far away from the action... they did a good job at mocking the practice...

while i do believe that allowing anyone to play any instrument anywhere they want can be intrusive to too many people who dont wanna hear it 24/7, i dont agree with outright banning it from places like central park... but would it be more fair to set up designated areas where they can not go as opposed to having a few areas where they can go??? how do you balance my right to hear music or play music with my right to not be intruded on by musicians wherever i go???

is there a fair balance for everyone??? no of course not... democracy doesnt work that way...


one thing i know for sure tho is that your first amendment has been under attack for some time from both sides of the aisle... the direction youre headed doesnt seem to be a good one for those who believe in the first amendment in its purest...

[BJJ-Blue]

lol... he just proved that you lied... here you say that you dont have legal issue with gay marriage yet he quoted you saying otherwise... and instead of conceding like you insist everyone else do when arguing with you, you did what you accuse others of doing... dodging the part that shows you wrong and changing the subject(even if it is the main topic)... i dont have issue with you saying "lets stay on topic" but it should have been after you explained the lie you were just caught in...

How so?

I've stated my views on it and they seem pretty consistant. When I say the Government has no business in the issue, that about says it all. Sure, you can dig up posts of me saying I'm against it, but it's moot if the Government just stays the heck out of the issue as I've said I'm for. If you watched the debate, Ron Paul actually said exactly what I believe on the issue. He said it's a State issue. Let each State decide and keep the Federal Government out of it. Of course when a State's citizens vote against it we shouldn't have judges throwing the will of the people out, but that's another topic.

So I'll restate it AGAIN. The Federal Government needs to stay out of it. If the States individually want to legalize or ban it, it should be their citizen's dicision. Did I state it well enough this time?

And fyi, the first one to change the subject was not me. First someone brought Bush into it, then gay marriage was brought into it. Considering the topic was a music ban in Central Park, those who brought the above topics into the mix were trying to change the subject first.

[MasterKiller]

What?

If you read the article, you would see no one was calling for any bans at all. The person who was defending it said there were complaints, but didn't back that assertion up. And if it was wanted, why didn't they gather signatures and put it on the ballot for the whole city to decide, instead of just letting a few elected officials implement the ban?

Umm.... Because we live in a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.
That's how sh1t gets done in a Republic. I don't remember voting to invade Iraq, afterall. Do you?

[MasterKiller]

So I'll restate it AGAIN. The Federal Government needs to stay out of it. If the States individually want to legalize or ban it, it should be their citizen's dicision. Did I state it well enough this time? .

Marriage is legal contract with implications that cross state boundaries, and for that reason, it CANNOT be a state's rights issue. People get married in one state and move for work, etc.... and you cannot have their rights waffle back and forth on the sole whim of the political climate.

Same reason 16 year olds can get married in Arkansas and move to Oklahoma and have that marriage recognized, even though marriage at 16 is illegal in Oklahoma.

[BJJ-Blue]

Umm.... Because we live in a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.
That's how sh1t gets done in a Republic. I don't remember voting to invade Iraq, afterall. Do you?

And in that Republic, we have laws that say certain things can be put on a ballot for the citizens to directly decide. The other thread about circumcision is an example. The people of California voted to put the issue on a statewide ballot, it was voted on, and one judge who didn't like it threw out the results.

The decision to invade Iraq was a FEDERAL issue, not a STATE issue.

[BJJ-Blue]

Marriage is legal contract with implications that cross state boundaries, and for that reason, it CANNOT be a state's rights issue. People get married in one state and move for work, etc.... and you cannot have their rights waffle back and forth on the sole whim of the political climate.

Same reason 16 year olds can get married in Arkansas and move to Oklahoma and have that marriage recognized, even though marriage at 16 is illegal in Oklahoma.

Of course it can be a State's right. If one State doesn't recognize it, it should be that State's right not to.

As to marrying kids, I'm not sure if that transfers over. You may be right. But it should only matter what the State you are living in says is legal/recognized.

[MasterKiller]

And in that Republic, we have laws that say certain things can be put on a ballot for the citizens to directly decide. The other thread about circumcision is an example. The people of California voted to put the issue on a statewide ballot, it was voted on, and one judge who didn't like it threw out the results.

Judges strike down laws all the time that people want but that are unconstitutional. A majority of people in one area cannot tell others how to live without considering that minority's constitutional rights.

The decision to invade Iraq was a FEDERAL issue, not a STATE issue.

So federal issues are allowed to be decided by elected representatives, but not state or local issues?

Our system is a Republic all the way down to the local level. You elect officials and expect them to enact policy in your best interest. Otherwise, we could just have votes on every issue and wouldn't need any politicians at all.

[MasterKiller]

Of course it can be a State's right. If one State doesn't recognize it, it should be that State's right not to.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Do you think Virginia should be allowed to prevent whites and nonwhites from marrying?

Did a group of judges who didn't like the law overstep their authority?

[BJJ-Blue]

Judges strike down laws all the time that people want but that are unconstitutional. A majority of people in one area cannot tell others how to live without considering that minority's constitutional rights.

The Constitution says nothing about the Government defining or protecting marriage. The STATE law was voted on, and it should be in effect. IMO, that's waht the founders wanted, States rights. So if California said no to gays getting married, and say New York said yes to it, those gays who wanted to live under New Yorks laws are free to move there. The Founders had a brilliant blueprint that would make just about everyone happy if we had just followed it, mainly by allowing State's rights. That way we would have less of a Federal Government 'one size fits all' set of laws, and instead have 50 different sets of State's laws and citizens could choose to live in the State they felt most fit their beliefs. Anything wrong with that?

So federal issues are allowed to be decided by elected representatives, but not state or local issues?

Not necessarily. But you used the Iraq War as an example. The Constitution is specific on how wars and foreign policy is to be made. And it's not a nationwide ballot referendum. It doesn't say anything about gay marriage, so according th the 10th Amendment, that's up to each State to handle it as they see fit, be it a law/policy that goes through the legislature and the Governor or a statewide ballot.

Our system is a Republic all the way down to the local level. You elect officials and expect them to enact policy in your best interest. Otherwise, we could just have votes on every issue and wouldn't need any politicians at all.

Incorrect. The Constitution does not call for that. Nowhere does it ban direct votes on local issues. Down here many bond issues are put on the ballot. Of course they usually pass because the liberals here love spending money we don't have. But imo it's better to let the people directly decide those issues.

Take this local issue as an example; sports stadiums. Those are usually (if not always) decided by the city in question's voters. Which is fair. Would you prefer a City Council made up of politicians choosing whether or not to build a billionaire a free sports stadium, or would you want the entire city to get to vote on that?