Ok, my suggestion is this thread be dropped. Your bias toward liberals was apparent from the early postings, Randy. It's gone from what to do about a disruptive participant at a venue to your frustrations with the party to which you don't ascribe.
There were JUST as many if not more sleights on the other side of the fence for countless years. People were allowed to protest as long as they did it miles from the venue and out of the cameras.
I take exception to the fact that every time the Darwin conversation cycles back, some segments of this list appear to be personally threatened because the concept of Darwin compromises their personal religious perspective which can be directly tied to their political perspective. Somewhere common sense makes a beeline out the door and the posters forget that Darwin is presented from the perspective of science. It is stipulated that this makes some folks uncomfortable, but it also makes folks who believe in scientific principles equally as uncomfortable when there is an effort to squelch the learning aspects a discussion could provide.
Presently, in society, there appears to be a mindset that says if you say something loudly and often it becomes fact. Science proves otherwise.
Let's get back to the concept that the original poster wanted a safe way to handle disruptive participants in a public venue and skip the political and religious aspects of this. It's not safe to continue otherwise. The histrionics have been a bit much and getting worse. If you want to vent your political angst or religious precepts, join me on Twitter. Otherwise, let's stick to the professionalism and drop the insults.
Looking for a Job in the Arts?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MuseJobs
Tweetcha Later!
https://twitter.com/Indigo_Nights
________________________________
From: Randy Little <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, November 22, 2009 6:34:11 PM
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] museum responses to the Evolution/Creationist debate
thats because yelling fire in a theatre makes people run out of the theatre putting them in Physical harms way. Its good to see you are putting that education into not knowing that you can't yell fire in a theatre is from a court case on the use of speech to endanger others. I mean if you don't know simple facts like this you are VERY VERY VERY VERY FAR from being a person to make any comments on the value of limiting speech. You know what obnoxious twits should have been told to shut the hell up. All those protesters at the rebulican convention in Chicago who violated the law saying they couldn't protest and disturb the convention. I am about as far as you can get from being a conservative but Librals super piss me off. Its only ok for librals to protest? What cause you are more right? (pun intended) This kind of talk is exactly what Phil Ochs was refering to in this quote. Librals are a little to the left when things are good and a
little to the right when it personally affects them. See his point would be that you are left until you dont' like the rules then you are actually acting like a neocon in restricting speech. SERISOULSY you think Fire in a threatre even relates to protesting what some people perceive as state sponsored secularism. So when those dude threw other shop owners tea in the harbor they should have been looked down on because NOT EVERYONE wanted war with england or there tea in the harbor. Oh OH maybe we can be like china. We can have protest zones. those zones can be in the Mojave desert but all protests are welcome if they do it there. That would help people get the point across. Seriously its a protest if its on public grounds its fair game. Thats how our country works. If its private property call the police and have them arrested for the plethora of laws they are probably breaking.
Its is the right of people to stand up for their morals as long as they don't physically cause harm. Its the most beautiful thing ever. I dont 't think anyone thinks they should be allowed to continue but if you can't grasp that anyone with half a brain cell is n't going to pick that event to protest because thats how the protesters get the coverage they want to tell the world they exist. There are MANY MANY minority groups (not racial minority) Who can only get attention by make a loud noise. They have that right. Just like the tea party. It was a small group affecting a much larger group of people weather they wanted to be disrupted or not.
I can give you a quote by a famous american father though since you are looking for one. Just this dude Benjiman Franklin
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
PLEASE REALLY ITS THE COST OF LIVING IN A FREE COUNTRY. I don't believe in creationism but I will fight and apparently am for their right to have that belief and speak out against a publicly funded event. If this is you your home or a private museum WITH ZERO NEA or NEH or any other fedral funds then tell them to leave or have police present to have them removed.
You are absolutely right that you don't have the right to not be disturbed on public grounds. Same people are that are saying its wrong to protest or the first to protest their beliefs in very obnoxious ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor and frequent misquoting of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The misquote fails to mention falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Randy S. Little
http://reel.rslittle.com
http://imdb.com/name/nm2325729/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rslittle
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Deb Fuller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Randy Little <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>> David thats all well and good unless the building and institution are receiving local state or federal funds. Then it for sure does apply as it implies direct support by the governement. While one side doesn't see it a religious issue covered by separation of church and state. One side sees it only that way. In that case they have the right to protest the event in the government funding building on those grounds. In which case no one is condoning bad behavior but I condone their right to protest on what they perceive and religious grounds.
>
>Help me out people, what founding father or prominent early American
>>said "Freedom of speech does not mean the right to yell fire in a
>>crowded theater"?
>
>>Seriously, I can't believe we are even making a discussion about this.
>>The topic of the movie and the larger
>>philosophical/religious/scientific debate has no bearing on the
>>essence of the problem - what to do about disruptive people during
>>museum programs. This applies to crying children, loud gum chewers,
>>cell phone addicts, chatty Cathys, as well as the righteously
>>indignant. If people want to protest, let them protest outside the
>>theater, write letters to the powers that be, and even hand out flyers
>>to patrons about how what they are about the see is a complete
>>fabrication. If there is a Q&A session, they can ask whatever topical
>>question they choose IF they do so in a civil and polite manner. Note,
>>this is asking legitimate questions, not hijacking the session and
>>turning it into their own personal forum. In summary, they DO NOT have
>>the right to deny other patrons opportunity to participate in museum
>>activities. It's all about basic etiquette, guys. You can't go wrong
>>with it.
>
>>The moment that you start to impinge on the right of someone to
>>participate in a legitimate activity, you become an obnoxious twit.
>>The Constitution does not protect the rights of obnoxious twits. (I'm
>>sure there is a legal definition for "obnoxious twit" but you get the
>>picture.)
>
>
>>Deb Fuller
>
>>=========================================================
>>Important Subscriber Information:
>
>>The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
>
>>If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).