DISQUS

The arrest of Benjamin Harms was not a matter of the police violating his free speech. He did a good enough job of that himself. There do happen to be legal restrictions on the extents to which rights can be exercised. Here is a more accurate breakdown of the situation, keeping my choice for candidate out of this:

There are restrictions on free speech, and violations of these restrictions (according to the law) translates a right into a privilege upon their abuse. Think about it like a "terms of service" agreement with a piece of software. One example (of many) of such a restriction on the first amendment is the classic case of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no real fire. This causes panic and can lead to people getting hurt. This is a form of "disturbing the peace," which is a violation of the first amendment right.

People also have the right to public assembly under the Bill of Rights, which does fall under the first amendment. The actions of Benjamin Harms in this video disrupt and interfere with the Obama supporters exercising their first amendment right to do so. Any act or exercising of a right that interferes with the inalienable rights of another is a violation of that right.

Therefore, Benjamin Harms wasn't escorted away for simply expressing his opinions as an extension of his first-amendment right. Rather, he was escorted away and threatened with being arrested because his actions were illegal, and was taken away for breaking the law.

The above reflects in no way, shape, or form my party affiliation, nor does it reflect my preference of candidate in this election. Now, if I may depart briefly from the video itself and comment on your leading paragraph:

Let me start breaking it down from beginning to end. You start by saying, "Police kicked protester Benjamin Harms off Belmont University campus this week before the presidential debate for the crime of “trespassing” as hundreds of mindless Obama supporters cheered the outright violation of free speech."

Let's take a look at this, shall we?

First let me address the passage by Andrew Slominski. By writing negatively of Obama's supporters, how are you being any better? Hypocrisy and contradictory writing is not a very good way to prove a point, especially if your attempts to be objective are muted by your choice candidate being implicit in your writing. This becomes a situation of the pot calling the kettle black.

As far as Obama "not taking any option off the table," just look at the War in Iraq. We rushed in half-cocked and look where we are now. This war is not popular with many Republicans and Democrats alike. I find it admirable that Obama wishes to consider his options before taking a risk and possibly making a strategic blunder. It shows he's using his brain, which contemporary politics is not very famous for.

On the issue of going into Pakistan, I would like to put some emphasis on the "if necessary" part of your own sentence. To me, it makes more sense to go in if necessary and not for no reason (again, look at Iraq, which was not where the Taliban forces were before we went into the region because of faulty intelligence).

You're right in saying a citizen has a right to explain the bail-out situation. However, the format in which Benjamin Harms did so was inappropriate and violated his first amendment right to do so.

As far as Mr. Watson's article goes, you even mention yourself that the Obama supporters "cheered the outright violation of free speech." If it is an outright violation of free speech, then aren't the Obama supporters in the right to cheer the police chastising an individual for breaking the law? Doesn't that show our police are doing a good job enforcing the law, and that our tax dollars are doing some good? I find your article rather contradictory and the posture in which anti-Obama feelings were expressed in these two articles to be highly dubious.

Now, don't get me wrong; both candidates have had their screw-ups and things I do disagree with. However, this situation is a phenomenon grown out of the McCain campaign, which, like the Bush Administration, operates on the politics of fear. The Obama campaign has been much more civil in its message, and if an Obama supporter were to disrupt the right to public assembly, he will (and has) single that person out as a bad example for the rest of Obama supporters and deal with it as immediately as possible. While Obama mainly focuses his campaign on policy issues, McCain, allowed members of his campaign (such as his running mate) to repeatedly slam Barack on a personal level, promoting xenophobia in an effort to make Obama seem alien to the American people (hence "politics of fear"). It was only recently, after many months of negative campaigning, that McCain owned up to what he did and attempted in a public forum to set the record straight. When McCain supporters shout "kill him" at his and Palin's rallies, it shows lack of respect for a Presidential candidate and, in an attempt to get back on topic, abuses the right to free speech.

When I was a wee Dave Kraft, my Kindergarten teacher would always tell me, "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it." Obama's talking down to or about McCain have been responses to slander and falsehoods on the conservative side of things in an attempt to set the record straight.

Before there is any confusion, this still isn't reflective of my candidate choice, and I'll tell you why:

While Barack Obama was still battling against Hillary, one of his former campaign staff members was filmed saying that President Obama may be very different from Candidate Obama. At the same point, John McCain the Senator is a much more respectable individual than John McCain the candidate, and I would've voted for him four years ago if he had gotten the Republican nomination. We have no idea how John McCain the President will be any different from Senator or candidate McCain, if at all. After months of negative campaigning, the Senator McCain finally started to shine through a bit when he repudiated the negative comments of his campaign, but that didn't last long as he kept campaigning negatively.

Candidates say what they say to get votes and for no other reason. How they are as candidates and how they are in the Oval Office are two entirely different things (unless you're Bill Clinton, who gave new meaning to the Oval Office in more ways than one). To use a saying from the glory days of the 1980s, given time both candidates are "more than meets the eye." Rather than making personal attacks on candidates, I'd recommend not just listening to what they say but also do fact-checking online (using objective, non-liberal and non-conservative sources, so no CNN, no MSNBC, no Fox News, etc.) to see what is true and what is not.

If I may exercise my own free speech, all politicians are corrupt in one sense or another, with more skeletons in their closets than an undertaker's convention. This is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils based on the policies they put forth, not based on skin color, gender, religion, or ethnic background. The way to figure this out is to do your fact-checking, tally up the falsities on a score card and find out who the biggest liar is. But throwing around your partisanship isn't going to solve this country's problems.