I agree with you Madcap, but where does it end? Should you or I be removed from a game because we yelled, "what a sh*tty call ref!", and some kid was sitting 2 rows behind you and their parents complained?
Because based on what you stated about yelling cuss words and disorderly conduct, it seems fair now.

Just to clarify, she wasn't sentenced for laughing. She was sentenced for her disruptive actions after the fact.

A lot of what MLB can or can not do is governed by Union and employee contracts. At this time I doubt either side thinks there is a serious problem with bean balls.

Probably between n***** and ****ty call ref.

Hopefully it does end there, but I hope that everyone caught saying the N word in the stands be removed in the future.

Just to clarify, anyone defending the government in the removal of that woman is an unAmerican fascist freedom hater.

Here's the thing you totalitarians don't get: I don't support the violence of Antifa or even shouting down people with whom you disagree, but I'm reluctant to use the power of the state to intervene in the situation. Your first impulse is to have the cops remove speech you disagree with (with maximum violence) whether it's preventing someone else's speech or just an expression of contempt for your heroes.

I get that you are unhinged at this point, but I was simply correcting misinformation you posted.

The jurors said they disagreed that she should've been removed for laughing, but once she was, the law was clear and their hands were tied.

I didn't defend the government, I'm not a totalitarian (words have meanings btw) and my first impulse is not to have the cops remove speech I disagree with (using maximum violence [again, words have meaning]), and Jeff Sessions, nor any politician for that matter, is any hero of mine.

Breathe.

Meh, the senate gallery rules have been in place a long time. It is not an area of free speech or one where people can protest. It is an area where people are supposed to sit and listen. She came there to protest. The cop might have jumped the gun but it is a subjective situation on whether someone is there to listen or interject themselves in the proceedings, The cop felt she was doing the latter by laughing (not even sure if the cop thought it was real or fake) a couple times when no jokes were being made. It is not the place where protests/ free speech can be allowed for obvious reasons.

She clearly violated the law by shouting on her way out the door. She was not convicted for laughing.

The first interaction is the problem and once the government starts off with an unjust detention, removal or arrest it bears much of the responsibility for what happens afterwards. The government in this case was clearly enforcing not just decorum, but this particular cops' political views.

There is no evidence of what political views of the cop is or that they were enforced. There is some evidence it was the cops first senate hearing. Not even sure there is evidence of how the cops regularly enforce the Senate/ Supreme Court rules of decorum. I would be surprised if someone loudly faked laughed or real laughed when jokes were not being made during like Hillary's testimony that they would not be asked to leave as well. You can not let audience members interject themselves into the proceedings or make statements. Pretty sure the cop was right in that she was attempting to make a statement when she laughed/scoffed loudly when Shelby said Sessions' record of "treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented."

And no asking someone to leave quietly, does not justify them shouting "Sessions is pure evil" and/or her other actions. If she wants to shout, sit on the capital steps and shout to her hearts content,

The guy should at least get a timeout right?

Re: Redsox...

I don't think it's a free speech issue.

I think the perm ban is a bit heavy handed, but I'm not going to over rule it.

My parents taught me not to put myself in the position of being made an example of.

Personally, I'm super happy I don't have to risk sitting next to that guy at the ball park ever again.

It has to be a judgement call and the setting also matters.

Someone going to a sporting event can't reasonably expect to avoid rambunctiousness/obscenities and so it is up to them to either deal with the occasional fan yelling "what a ****ty call" or they can choose to not go to the game.

There wouldn't be the same expectations at a playground or something and so the bar would be set much lower.

The bolded part above is interesting, and basically my position. So I think you're agreeing that it is immoral for Antifa to physically assault other people who are engaging in non-violent free speech.

But I guess we have a question between us as to how reluctant one should be to want the power (force) of government to intervene. I would say, if there is one assault all day in a crowd of 400 people or something like that, then sure, we don't need the police to ratchet up their presence much, if at all. But if there are many rocks flying, people getting punched (or attacked with bike locks), etc., then clearly, morally, the police must protect the free speech of all present by stopping the violence. The police must, morally, meet violence with the overwhelming force that is the job of the police. Maintain order and protect our most fundamental and essential foundation to a civil society.

As so brilliantly stated by AppleCrumble in post #2 ITT, free speech

It's about one word..reasonable. It's reasonable to ban a guy for using the the N word. Unfortunately those on the left are anything but reasonable. The PC police stick their nose into everything. Therefore, it does create a slippery slope when a person is kicked out of an event because the leftists will always push it as far as they can go to the point of unreasonableness.

What is reasonable is using common sense. The left does not know what his word means. This why we have this debate.

am i, mongo, or a portion of a political spectrum responsible for some tweet from someone we have never heard of expressing outrage (fake or not) about a joke on a late night talk show?

if people were defending this tweet or it was some sort of representation of a movement to dismiss late night talk show hosts for jokes they don't like, you would be making a point. thats not happening though

every time someone of a radical religion blows themselves and others up the left runs around in some sort of panic saying "but but but its not all...."

when you present the tweet of some twitter dork nobody has heard of or defends, they dont represent much, other than themselves

https://twitter.com/hashtag/firecolbert

www.firecolbert.com

rofl what epic self-ownage

what?

has this "movement" left twitter?

does it represent me?

try reading my post again or something

there was already a "famous" cancel colbert campaign that was completely stupid. this fringe circus is far more mainstream but still a fringe circus

LOL at your goalpost shifting. The portion of your post that I quoted, bolded, and responded to still says everything it needs to.

Isn't it weird how "knowing things" is such a dirty liberal trick? You were so sure that the glorious right doesn't engage in movements to "dismiss late night talk show hosts for jokes they don't like" (not like dirty liberals, those suppressors of free speech) that you felt totally comfortable making that idiotic claim in your post. And boy, what a dumb miscalculation that turned out to be, eh? It's just so weird how reality was against you on this one!

no i was confident that this "movement" should not be compared to or comparable to actual movements. i was also confident it is stupid to attach people to movements they don't belong to. you found a group of people on twitter that are outraged and possibly fake outraged. that was already apparent from your original post that contained a tweet

the "movement" website has t-shirts and coffee cups for sale. lol get a grip. social media is where fringe weirdos can gather with like minded weirdos and confuse observers with questionable iq and confirmation bias that theyre relevant

colbert isnt even going to apologize over this non issue from this non movement, never mind get fired. nobody cares, except if you can't grasp how twitter works and how weirdos gather. im confident the owner of the website will fail to make any of this actually relevant while selling some coffee mugs and tshirts

It's such a "non issue" from a "non movement" that Colbert responded to it on his show last night

Indeed, nobody cares about this at all! (except, like, tons of major media organization on both the right and left? LOL)

Seriously, could you just once try "knowing what you're talking about"? It's a really excellent tool to deploy in arguments, you should seriously give it a try sometime!

I look forward to your next batch of goalpost shifting. First there were no movements, then those movements didn't count because they were on Twitter and also nobody cared - what exciting twists and turns lay ahead as juan navigates the treacherous waters of never knowing what the **** he's talking about? Let's find out in his next post!

youre hopelessly confused as usual. your original tweet was from fox news guy whos outrage may or may not be fake but its clear his job is to be an attention whore. the "movement" is non existent and therefore shouldn't be compared to actual movements that are persisting with actual consequences. i also pointed out that this tweet only represents the fringe weirdos participating and shouldn't be attributed to people on one side of the political spectrum in general. i also posted a previous fringe weirdo attention whoring cancel colbert campaign that made it on to huff post live. as i said before its such a non issue that colbert probably won't even apologize, never mind be fired. you then sourced a cancel colbert website that sells coffee mugs and tshirts

im not surprised you have completely twisted reality here since you are the same one posting fake twitter news about the patriots visit to the whitehouse and then after the author admitted their mistake and called it fake news, you were still in complete denial and refused to admit you posted fake news. that sort of behavior takes a special type of person. i don't know where you can get twitter lessons but i suggest you take some if you're going to be so immersed in the twitterverse

We've been over this, juan:

You see how I know the dumb things you're gonna post before you even post them? How pathetic it must be for your bad posting to be so utterly predictable. That's a special type of person.

Um, the prosecutors argued that laughing was enough for the charge and argued those facts in court. But you are right that the jury did not convict on the laugh, which is reassuring:

Jury nullification next time, plz.

Scary that the government wants to prosecute people for laughing and the forum conservatives are fine with it. OH, wait, fascists like mongo want harsher sentences. Yikes.