Why heckling Page is Fair Game

Fred Fredburger wrote:

Bill C wrote:

the responsibility
has to accompany the freedom.

There you go.

What does responsibility mean with respect to this matter? You people
keep using vague adjectives to imply something, but always leave your
main point unspoken. Perhaps it's because you really can't articulate
what it is you are trying to imply.


Magilla

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:41:53 -0500, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

Fans can boo anytime or anywhere they want. They don't need
to ask anyone's permission.

I don't think it's right during an interview. During the event is one
thing, but during an interview is different.

The interview is part of the sporting event. It's fair game. Here's how
you know it's fair game, JT...if it's okay to cheer, then it's okay to
boo. If you can do it from your seat, it's fine.

That's the only legal analysis you need to do.

Now if you went to an indoor press conference and booed, they can kick
you out of there for doing that. But not in the stadium.


Magilla

On Dec 29, 6:28*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Paul G. wrote:

You usually seem like a reasonable guy. Where are you getting this
idea that the Page Clan "willingly participated" in the fight? *They
unwisely confronted McAnus about disrupting the interview, but that is
hardly "willingly participating" in the fight.

What's the alternative? That they weren't responsible for their own
actions? How is that possible?

What actions are you saying they were responsible for? According to
VeloNews "Wade Book asked McAninch to quiet down." I would agree that
this was not wise. Perhaps Book does not have a lot of experience with
belligerent drunks. Nevertheless, there's no way "quiet down" would
be considered "fighting words".

The video shows McAnus and Jim Farasy assaulting Book, and Book trying
to get away. The idea that Book started it by initially assaulting
McAnus and Jim Farasy is laughable.

Seriously- do you have **** for brains?


Bottom line is that Book's decisions landed him where they landed him.
Those were his decisions and nobody forced him to make them. He was not
a security person, he willingly confronted a couple obnoxious drunks.
That's a stupid thing to do.

Yeah, I'm sure Book would agree with you in retrospect that
confronting McAnus and asking him to quiet down was a stupid thing to
do. But what McAnus did was far more stupid. I would not be at all
surprised if there are severe repercussions for McAnus like losing his
job and getting kicked off his team.
-Paul

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Bill C wrote:

the responsibility
has to accompany the freedom.
There you go.

What does responsibility mean with respect to this matter? You people
keep using vague adjectives to imply something, but always leave your
main point unspoken. Perhaps it's because you really can't articulate
what it is you are trying to imply.

I started this with my comment a couple posts back that said:

The fact that so many of you absolve the Page Clan of responsibility
for the fight they willingly participated in IS CRAZY. The fight
caused far more damage to the sport than 50 hecklers would have.

I guess I said some other stuff about growing the **** up, too.

You're focused on the hecklers, I know. I'm more disturbed by the
endlessly repeated idea that the Page Clan was justified in their
actions because of what the hecklers said. That's not so. Without the
Page Clan's bungling interference, there would have been no fight. The
Page Clan remains responsible for their own actions. It disturbs me that
people so lightly throw this aside on the basis of whatever
self-righteous anger they feel or assume Page's relatives felt. Anger
doesn't justify squat.

We could talk about whatever responsibility McAninch and Farasy have,
but I haven't heard excuses being made for them yet and so I haven't
raised that issue. I think that one's really been beat to death already.

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Bill C wrote:

the responsibility
has to accompany the freedom.
There you go.

What does responsibility mean with respect to this matter? You people
keep using vague adjectives to imply something, but always leave your
main point unspoken. Perhaps it's because you really can't articulate
what it is you are trying to imply.

I started this with my comment a couple posts back that said:

The fact that so many of you absolve the Page Clan of responsibility
for the fight they willingly participated in IS CRAZY. The fight
caused far more damage to the sport than 50 hecklers would have.

I guess I said some other stuff about growing the **** up, too.

You're focused on the hecklers, I know. I'm more disturbed by the
endlessly repeated idea that the Page Clan was justified in their
actions because of what the hecklers said. That's not so. Without the
Page Clan's bungling interference, there would have been no fight. The
Page Clan remains responsible for their own actions. It disturbs me that
people so lightly throw this aside on the basis of whatever
self-righteous anger they feel or assume Page's relatives felt. Anger
doesn't justify squat.

I have to agree with this - it's pretty similar to a point Ben's made in the
thread. I do think that Magilla is too focused on the Page bunch "messing with" the
hecklers' right to heckle and not enough on the Page bunch's right to disagree with
what they're saying. Of course, disagreeing with what drunken hecklers are saying and
letting them know that can have consequences, as we've seen.

We could talk about whatever responsibility McAninch and Farasy have,
but I haven't heard excuses being made for them yet and so I haven't
raised that issue. I think that one's really been beat to death already.

That doesn't mean we're going to stop said beating, of course. This is rbr, we
have standards.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Paul G. wrote:
On Dec 29, 6:28 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Paul G. wrote:

You usually seem like a reasonable guy. Where are you getting this
idea that the Page Clan "willingly participated" in the fight? They
unwisely confronted McAnus about disrupting the interview, but that is
hardly "willingly participating" in the fight.
What's the alternative? That they weren't responsible for their own
actions? How is that possible?

What actions are you saying they were responsible for? According to
VeloNews "Wade Book asked McAninch to quiet down." I would agree that
this was not wise. Perhaps Book does not have a lot of experience with
belligerent drunks. Nevertheless, there's no way "quiet down" would
be considered "fighting words".

When you're confronting a belligerent drunk, who knows what "fighting
words" are? I don't imagine it takes much.


The video shows McAnus and Jim Farasy assaulting Book, and Book trying
to get away.

You keep saying this, and people keep disagreeing with you. The video
shows nothing until AFTER the fight had started. After the fight
started, Book thought better and tried to get away. That's too late.

The idea that Book started it by initially assaulting
McAnus and Jim Farasy is laughable.

That's not my idea.

Book was not responsible for crowd control or security. He made it his
business. BAD DECISION. Your ability to excuse his vigilante cowboy
routine is crazy. It's not nothing. You shouldn't blow it off as though
it is.


Seriously- do you have **** for brains?

Bottom line is that Book's decisions landed him where they landed him.
Those were his decisions and nobody forced him to make them. He was not
a security person, he willingly confronted a couple obnoxious drunks.
That's a stupid thing to do.

Yeah, I'm sure Book would agree with you in retrospect that
confronting McAnus and asking him to quiet down was a stupid thing to
do. But what McAnus did was far more stupid.

It doesn't matter whether McAninch was "more stupid". That doesn't make
Book smart. You're using GW Bush apologist logic. "It's OK that we
declared war on Iraq because Saddam was a HUGE asshole. Bush is morally
superior because at least he didn't gas the Kurds." Moral relativity,
you know the drill.

You big, ****ing, REPUBLICAN!

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
...

You're using GW Bush apologist logic. "It's OK that we declared war on
Iraq because Saddam was a HUGE asshole. Bush is morally superior because
at least he didn't gas the Kurds."

Too bad you still haven't discovered why we went in there when we did.

On Dec 29, 9:14*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Paul G. wrote:
On Dec 29, 6:28 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Paul G. wrote:

You usually seem like a reasonable guy. Where are you getting this
idea that the Page Clan "willingly participated" in the fight? *They
unwisely confronted McAnus about disrupting the interview, but that is
hardly "willingly participating" in the fight.
What's the alternative? That they weren't responsible for their own
actions? How is that possible?

What actions are you saying they were responsible for? According to
VeloNews "Wade Book asked McAninch to quiet down." *I would agree that
this was not wise. Perhaps Book does not have a lot of experience with
belligerent drunks. *Nevertheless, there's no way "quiet down" would
be considered "fighting words".

When you're confronting a belligerent drunk, who knows what "fighting
words" are? I don't imagine it takes much.


"Fighting words" is a legal concept with the blessing of the Supreme
Court. Calling someone's mother a whore would be a good example. You
can actually punch someone for that. But you can't keep punching them,
kick them in the head, etc. Being drunk does not mean it's OK to
assault someone.


Book was not responsible for crowd control or security. He made it his
business. BAD DECISION. Your ability to excuse his vigilante cowboy
routine is crazy. It's not nothing. You shouldn't blow it off as though
it is.

You DO have **** for brains! What Book did was unwise. What McAnus
did was an assault. There is a world of difference between those two.
It's not nothing. You shouldn't blow it off as though it is.


You big, ****ing, REPUBLICAN!

Heh heh! Now THERE are some fighting words!
-Paul

On Dec 29, 6:29*pm, Bill C wrote:
On Dec 29, 6:10*pm, Amit Ghosh wrote:

dumbass,

i am sick of these "emotional" tough guys like phil moore and kunich
who want to beat up people who insult them on the internet.

these are the same types of guys that get into shoving matches at
bars, stalk ex-girlfriends and eventually put a barrel of a shotgun in
their mouth.

I'm also sick of loud mothed assholes screaming out garbage,
disrupting others people's right to speak, ruining others people's
events to stroke their sad little egos. Your right to be an asshole
ends at my right to conduct my life and business. I'd love to come up
there where I'm guessing you teach some classes and scream throught
them about how you plagiarized a bunch of your papers, insinuate you
molest little boys, and all kinds of other garbage with NO
repercussions for my actions at all.

dumbass,

i don't think like you. only meatheads would flip out and get physical
over words. i work in a high stress environment where heckling and
verbal abuse can be at a level that would wither 90% of people. thin
skinned crybabies that can't adapt just end up leaving. it was jolting
at first but it cured me of any residual passive aggressiveness.

*A race, like any other sanctioned sporting event is controlled by the
organizing body, it's not a public area. It's a private event where
the public is allowed access. With that come certain standards of
behavior, especially where they could damage the product, as this
asshole did.

there is a line that can be crossed, but when you do cross that line
it can get you arrested eg. intoxicated in public, assault, vandalism,
creating a disturbance. just being disparaging isn't crossing that
line.

Amit Ghosh wrote:
i work in a high stress environment where heckling and verbal
abuse can be at a level that would wither 90% of people. thin skinned
crybabies that can't adapt just end up leaving.

You get paid to post to rbr ?