Florida Republicans do not have free speech

#2
#2
A political party advocating you not do something that is perceived as not being in the best interest of the party? Shocking.
 
#3
#3
They aren't a governmental entity. Thus, no free speech issue as far as I can tell.
 
#5
#5
kptvol said:
A political party advocating you not do something that is perceived as not being in the best interest of the party? Shocking.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between taking a posiiton and encouraging the troops to follow it versus saying that, if you don't endorse the chosen one, your own political career is doomed.



paul1454 said:
They aren't a governmental entity. Thus, no free speech issue as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...


No First Amendment issue, yes. But free speech is a copncept at its core, and one the TP and the state GOP now overrun by TP goons don't approve of, apparently.
 
#6
#6
lawgator1 said:
There's a difference between taking a posiiton and encouraging the troops to follow it versus saying that, if you don't endorse the chosen one, your own political career is doomed.


No First Amendment issue, yes. But free speech is a copncept at its core, and one the TP and the state GOP now overrun by TP goons don't approve of, apparently.
Click to expand...

There's just no way you are really a lawyer.
 
#7
#7
#9
#9
On further review, it looks like a memo was sent out reminding Republicans about an already existing rule, one that's probably rarely applicable. Not exactly like the Tea Party is actively seeking to crush this guy or anyone who supports him.
 
#11
#11
kptvol said:
On further review, it looks like a memo was sent out reminding Republicans about an already existing rule, one that's probably rarely applicable. Not exactly like the Tea Party is actively seeking to crush this guy or anyone who supports him.
Click to expand...


A memo.

Reminding them.

LOL.
 
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
There's a difference between taking a posiiton and encouraging the troops to follow it versus saying that, if you don't endorse the chosen one, your own political career is doomed.






No First Amendment issue, yes. But free speech is a copncept at its core, and one the TP and the state GOP now overrun by TP goons don't approve of, apparently.
Click to expand...

But considering that free speech is meaningless outside the first amendment context, why even imply that this makes the tea party movement less "constitutional" (to use your term)?
 
#13
#13
paul1454 said:
But considering that free speech is meaningless outside the first amendment context, why even imply that this makes the tea party movement less "constitutional" (to use your term)?
Click to expand...


I didn't say the principle of free speech is "meaningless" outside of constitutional concerns, but of course you know that.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
I didn't say the principle of free speech is "meaningless" outside of constitutional concerns, but of course you know that.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to back you in a corner or put words in your mouth. Limiting speech outside the confines of the first amendment (i.e., by private parties) is no more relevant to the constitution than a private party that goes to church or establishes some form of a personal religion (which would be a violation of the constitution if done by the government).
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
The state GOP has warned any Republican who endorses Charlie Crist in an independent run for US Senate over Tea Party darling Marco Rubio is persona non grata

Republicans warned to steer clear if Crist goes rogue | Naked Politics


Ironic that the Tea Party, which considers itself to be so "constitutional" in its interests, is working so hard to squelch free speech.
Click to expand...


2ed5jwi.gif
 
#16
#16
I don't understand how this qualifies as free speech. The party is telling members they will receive no party support ad all of its anger if they back an independent and split the party. How is that suppression?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#17
#17
BigPapaVol said:
I don't understand how this qualifies as free speech. The party is telling members they will receive no party support ad all of its anger if they back an independent and split the party. How is that suppression?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm sure our resident constitutional attorney will inform you of the many 1st Amendment violations that are involved.

He'll then explain to us how Slive violated SEC coaches' freedom of speech for criticizing referees... :unsure:
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
A memo.

Reminding them.

LOL.
Click to expand...

It's not as if they passed a new freaking rule to block any endorsement of this guy. It's something that probably doesn't come up a lot and I'd bet a lot of these guys don't even know it exists. It's still not a violation of freedom of speech no matter how you spin it.
 
#19
#19
BigPapaVol said:
I don't understand how this qualifies as free speech. The party is telling members they will receive no party support ad all of its anger if they back an independent and split the party. How is that suppression?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
It's not suppression... It's just what's wrong with American politics today for both parties. If you don't tote the party lines all the time, they disown you. A sad case.
 
#20
#20
Cash Vallin said:
It's not suppression... It's just what's wrong with American politics today for both parties. If you don't tote the party lines all the time, they disown you. A sad case.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's why blue dogs and RINOs exist.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
The state GOP has warned any Republican who endorses Charlie Crist in an independent run for US Senate over Tea Party darling Marco Rubio is persona non grata

Republicans warned to steer clear if Crist goes rogue | Naked Politics


Ironic that the Tea Party, which considers itself to be so "constitutional" in its interests, is working so hard to squelch free speech.
Click to expand...

however, if Christ decides against a run as an independent and remains a candidate in the GOP primary, then your little exercise is pretty pointless.

Democrats Back Lamont; Lieberman Files for Independent Run - Voting | Vote | 2006 Elections - FOXNews.com

the democrats' treatment of Joe Lieberman was far more vicious.
 
#25
#25
How on earth is this a free speech issue? Linking this to the TP and hypocrisy via their focus on the constitution is a monumental stretch.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top