First up, bring back the old quoting system!

"I'm of the opinion that both Hillary and Trump would make bad presidents."

Agreed.

"That being said, I don't really believe the narrative that Trump would be the worse of the two; the "apocalyptic" one to elect. Trump is incompetent and chaotic. Hillary is greasy and corrupt."

Which one has campaigned for a law that flagrantly violates the first amendment? Which one has called an entire demographic of US citizens rapists and murderers?

" I think the system (which is actually pretty well designed at its core..."

The American political system is a complete clusterfuck. You have a two party monopoly, the electoral college is a disaster and then there's Citizens United.

"The DNC had a chance to put in another option that would have easily had as much support from core Democrats as Hillary, but also would have energized younger voters AND been a very attractive option for Republicans who don't buy in to Trump (of which there are many). But instead, they left their fingers on the scales and tipped things in favor of Hillary."

Completely agree. Instead of the excitement of a Bernie running, you have the "ugh, Hillary, I guess" attitude.

"So, I'll vote for one of the 3rd party candidates (I like Stein's stance on Snowden, so probably her) or write in the option that crooked DNC and Hillary denied us. Either of those actions is de-facto more likely to result in President Trump, and I acknowledge that. But like I said, I'm OK with that -- I honestly believe Hillary would be worse, and the main thing is that me and other people like me have to send a message to both parties that they need to present us with more reasonable candidates if they expect us to have any degree of the "party loyalty" that both sides expected / enjoyed in the past. This election cycle shows that they are taking that for granted -- so screw 'em."

And here we have the major issue. I have NO IDEA how people think electing Trump will somehow bring down the system. "Screw 'em"?? As in the dems and the gop? It won't bother them in the slightest.

But it will bother Mexicans, Muslims, LGBT people and em.... damnit, there was another demographic that the Republicans want to fuck over.... oh yeah... women.

Forget Trump. As much of an unconscionable arsehole as he is, look at the GOP platform for 2016:
- tax cuts for the rich
- repeal environmental protections
- an anti-abortion amendment
- oppose stem cell research
- prop up the electoral college
- ignore climate change agreements
- repeal obamacare
- abolish net neutrality
- oppose same-sex marriage
- abstinence-based sex education
- increase military spending
- the ridiculous and wasteful border wall

and finally, appoint a new Supreme Court Judge to push all this through. And THAT is the real reason Trump can't be allowed to be President. Say what you want about Hillary, but at least she won't choose a complete loon for the supreme court. Trump might pick David Duke, for all we know.

OK, you could make that argument about the first amendment, even though the supreme court has ruled “Child pornography, defamation and inciting crimes are just a few examples of speech that has been determined to be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.”, and there's also the "clear and present danger" exception as written in 1919 by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. -“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”
The decision says the First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech that is likely to cause immediate harm to others. Because the court is the legal interpreter of the constitution, it's not neglect, it's judicial interpretation. The buck stops at the Supreme Court.

But the second amendment, the topic, STARTS with "A WELL REGULATED militia...", so clearly regulations limiting/regulating firearm ownership and use was exactly what they intended from the start....no?

My views are heavily biased as well, just from a different point of view. Most of the discussion over here is fueled by misinformation and emotion.

And yes, some people outright refuse to put the blame on the individual. Can't have a proper discussion about anything with those folks. In any case, the laws DO apply to everyone equally, but enforcement has been just as lax in Cologne as it was regarding the hundreds of cases of arson I mentioned. Cost-cutting measures everywhere.

Additionally, what most people outside this country seem unable to understand is our problem with hate speech. It's not "just words" if you have a history where these words quickly turned into blood on the streets. Right-wing extremists and even outright Nazis still are a problem over here. People should keep that in mind before they parade their First Amendment before us -- different culture. Though discussion in general is somewhat lackluster over here, no matter the topic. Used to be better, but people try to avoid confrontation whenever possible...

Anyway, I'd say leave the video as it is. It might be interesting to see how folks react to it.

yeah..i am with @VoodooV on this one.

the man was not working.
was not wearing any company logos or identification,yet loses his job.

for what?
being an insensitive racist idiot?

public shaming?
all for it,and it might even change a few hearts and minds.inject a little empathy in an otherwise rigid and narrow worldview.

losing his job?
eeeeeeh..i think some people are taking the social warrior thing a tad too far,and are not being far sighted in their execution.

sure..we can hate on this racist asshole and ridicule him for his idiocy,but what happens when the PC police find something that YOU do offensive or inappropriate?

would you still be as confident in losing your livelihood?

i have been following this case in canada where this graphic designer is facing 6 months in jail for criticizing and disagreeing with two feminists.these women are trying to make the case that his criticisms,in the form of tweets,constitutes harrassment.

he lost his job.
is 80k in the hole,and the case has been ongoing for three years.

so there is already a frightening amount of this PC police,social warrior fascism having actually consequences.

so where do we draw the line?
who is going to arbitrarily monitor that line?
who decides what is offensive and what is not?

you start going down this road and that line will become more and more blurred until the first amendment is toast.

i am finding it more and more disturbing that people are beginning to think that being offended somehow equates to a right.that their little world,their minute and tiny habitat should be protected from offensive language.

unless you are ok with destroying peoples lives for being an idiot or an asshole.

social warriors:morality police concerned with their own little habitat,but they have your best interest as well.

oh goodie....

Yeah, I'm a little disappointed by the unnecessary misquotes and 'making up arguments' myself, sort of kills the debate. I never made excuses for the cops, and I always agreed they were in the wrong. I never said Hammond was a threat to anyone, or that I felt threatened by filming.

What I have been saying, again and again, is that he can be a tool for intentionally trying to provoke this reaction, even if the cops are completely wrong. It's not a discussion about whether or not his action was legal, but you keep on bringing up the cops reaction as though that is relevant. Which makes it sound as though your argument is: "as long as what he did was legal, he can't be a tool for doing it." Which I disagree with; see also 'open carry' protests etc.

As for what effect the first amendment audits will have on legislation, I imagine it'll be a similar scenario as when corporations exploit tax loopholes. Once somebody comes up with a clever way to remain within their legal rights but still act like an asshole, the system tries to evolve to close those loopholes. I'm all for trying to steer the system in the right direction, but I'm not going to applaud those exploiting loopholes to act like assholes.

As for the strange argument about the watch list, I don't know what you're trying to say - I already told you he's on the list and that I don't think that necessarily means anything. What more did you want to say about that?

Are you going to get back to, again, the fact that the cops were in the wrong? I think we haven't explored that angle yet, let's try going over it three or four times more.

Please don't keep switching back to saying that what the cops did was wrong and making it seem like that's what we're in disagreement about. I'm fully in agreement with you that what they did was wrong and illegal in Virginia, and would be in a little more than half the country. In all the 24 states with stop and identify requirements, their actions would have been legal, but not in VA. I'm not arguing that what they did was correct, professional, or legal - I've never said that. This is why I asked you to consider what this guy would be like if he hadn't been arrested, to take their behavior out of the equation for just a sec.

(to be fair, if we take the extreme opposite scenario into consideration - if somebody had driven a truck full of explosives into the FBI building the day after, and the media finds out that a lone white man with a gun holster and a camera, who's on the terrorist watch list*, had been standing in full sight and filming the federal reserve and the FBI all day before, the cops would most likely get pilloried for not detaining him)

The only place thing that we disagree is on his personality, which I aver leans towards the 'tool' end of the spectrum. He can be right and a tool. He went out of his way to provoke a reaction, in what he and his peers call a "first amendment audit," and tried to make cops nervous to see if he could catch them overreacting. That kind of behavior is what drives the implementation of harsher anti-citizen legislation.

*I doubt he's actually a terrorist; he's just on the watch list.

Meh, I don't think states should fly it, but I will defend to the last an individual's right to fly it if they choose to do so. I don't have to agree with them, but I would still defend it. Trying to shove people's first amendment rights down the gutter of political correctness has done nothing to help us. If anything it has made it harder to identify the crazy people.

I'm definitely not seeing any actual legitimate censorship issue and no legitimate point or argument--and certainly no censorship "rule." There is no rule or law against showing nipples on the internet. The decision to blur the photograph was made entirely by this V Magazine at their own discretion for their own reasons.

Compared to many western countries, the United States is relatively light on censorship precisely because of the codification of the first amendment. There are very few circumstances in which the federal government uses criminal law to enforce censorship, and using civil law to do likewise (such as in cases of libel) is relatively hard. Naturally, the truth on the ground is always more complex, because of all of the ways you can sneak sort-of-censorship into local and state laws such school boards determining public school curriculums, shady contracts, and discriminatory public decency laws. That last, which is really more what this guy is arguing about in a ham-fisted way.

I certainly don't believe there should be different laws for men and for women. If a bare-chested man in public is acceptable, I believe a bare-chested woman should be just as acceptable. In this case, I'd go so far as to say I believe that should be federal law, but that can likewise backfire in ways I don't agree with (eg, I believe wether to allow concealed handguns should be a local decision), so I'm not quick to make blanket statements.

Certainly the US is socially and psychologically backward in many, many ways, but it's also better in that respect now on balance than it has ever been in the past.

This has got to be a hard problem to fight; everything they showed is legal under the first amendment. So it seems the only way to fight street harassment is to make it socially unacceptable among macho douchebags.

But the douchebags don't care that what they're doing is distressing, they know that. The whole point is to belittle women who want nothing to do with them.

And yet, I get the impression most large cities in the world don't have this problem. What do they do to keep the dickheads repressed?

i cannot express just how much this fake scandal tickles me.
my feeds have been blasted and coated for weeks since this all started with "i support phil" and "phil is a hero of the first amendment".

a fake controversy about a show i dont watch.
on a network i dont frequent.
based on words from an ignorant hillbilly.

but even at the outset of all this it had the flavor of fabrication,a planned and calculated cacophony of incendiary bullshit.

a product was being marketed.

and will ya lookie here.....
thats exactly what it was.

phil roberston was no salt-of-the earth,hard working hillbilly redneck whose family made it big in the duck calling business.

he is a savvy businessmen who plays a scripted role in a scripted "reality" show that appeals to a certain demographic.
he is an actor.
a product created to entertain the masses.
a created character where many of his loyal fans can relate because he looks just like them.
talks like them.
acts like them.

kinda like sarah palin but with a ZZtop beard.

the conservative christians have been duped.bamboozeled.
even this controversy has been a marketing creation in order to sell more T-shirts and posters.

and it has worked brilliantly.

The title of this video is a joke, right?

These people don't really understand the Bill of Rights and First Amendment or what their right of assembly really means. It does not mean nor has it ever meant that you can show up on any public property and do whatever you want.

Some good articles on the subject:

Curfews, loitering & freedom of association
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/curfews-loitering-freedom-of-association

Assembly Explained
http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/assembly

A Brief Lesson Plan on Assembly:
http://documents.mccormickfoundation.org/Civics/programs/files/pdf/FASI-Sum2011/AssemblyLesson.pdf

Many of the illegal "protesters" here are just standing their silently, but guess what.. that isn't protected.

If the police politely ask you to move along at a crime scene - you do so.

The kind of behavior this group is indulging in is comical to me. What was their message? I missed that. Furthermore, they purposely set up a situation where they are going to have problems with police and then pretend to be surprised when they are asked to disperse.

1. Read the First Amendment and tell me where it is granting you any right:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The operative phrase is a restriction on the power of Congress, not the endowment of a right upon individuals.

Also, the Declaration of Independence backs me up:

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

As does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

These rights are yours simply because you are human, and they are inalienable - you can't give them away even if you want to.

2. You can not bring a lawsuit in US court for a violation of rights based upon legislation unless you have standing. In effect, you must demonstrate that a law has actually caused you harm in some illegitimate, unfair, or unconstitutional manner. One of the easiest ways to gain standing is to violate the law and suffer the consequences of what you perceive to be an unjust law.

3. The Supreme Court has only recognized a right to privacy from government intrusion not from individual or corporate intrusion. Furthermore, there is no assumption to a right to privacy in a public place. The most logical reason for the need to get a permit to film there is that the Park Service recognizes the economic value of licensing something that is in high demand (filming in front of the White House) and could care less about the privacy of individuals (citizens and non-citizens alike).

Aaaaaaand another thing...

"An assault weapons ban basically equates to "you may not own this item" the restrictions on 1st Amendment rights say "you man not use a word in this very limited list of situations".

First Amendment in action.