Guard at the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier maintains proper decorum.

[okboomer]

Your "free speech" ends when it violates the rights of others. Your post is so full of crap, it makes me want to puke. You would have "challenged" nothing, as the only balls you show is on an internet site, I have no doubt. The veterans in the crowd, not the honor guard, would have shut you up very quickly. You are the archetypal 'sunshine patriot" spouting about your "rights" while disrespecting those who have fought and died for them.

Yeah, a bit of "mealy mouth" passive/aggressive tripe.

 

[Citizen]

OK, Jarhead, this BAM says...(snipped a bunch of inapplicable blather)

Nice try at twisting, evading, and going off on a tangent. Either there was a demand for silence or there wasn't. The video clearly shows there was.

But, now you're trying to say the military involvement wasn't government involvement. I'm just going to give that one the response it deserves: bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaa!!!

Are you going to explain how the demand for silence did not affect speech, or not?

Nevermind. I've seen your ability to argue with intellectual honesty. I'm not interested.

"Respect the idea of the unknown dead vet and his sacrifice. Without them we'd have no rights! All praise Allah, from who all blessings flow."

 

[okboomer]

Nice try at twisting, evading, and going off on a tangent. Either there was a demand for silence or there wasn't. The video clearly shows there was.

But, now you're trying to say the military involvement wasn't government involvement. I'm just going to give that one the response it deserves: bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaa!!!

Are you going to explain how the demand for silence did not affect speech, or not?

Nevermind. I've seen your ability to argue with intellectual honesty. I'm not interested.

"Respect the idea of the unknown dead vet and his sacrifice. Without them we'd have no rights! All praise Allah, from who all blessings flow."

No, the military involvement was NOT government involvement ... go to the sites I listed to see when and why the Old Guard took over sentry duty at the Tomb of the Unknowns. The government DID NOT appoint them the post, the military ASSUMED the post due to disrespect/defacement of the tomb. This is a military service task and not a Federal Government assignment, so the government is "not" involved, nor is the sentry behaving as a "government agent."

If there is no "government involvement" then there is no government infringement of BoR. Of course, this will mean absolutely nothing to you as you are insisting that I am wrong. I, however, refrain from commenting on your propensity to argue and confabulate issues into hysterical government conspiracies.

As a sentry walking his post, how can he infringe upon anyone's right to free speech? He simply cannot as an individual. You are the one who keeps insisting on this being a 'governmental' issue.

Oh, and your last statement - if I don't respect him and his sacrifice, then shame on me. Without them, no we would only have the rights our conquerer's deign to grant us, which would probably have been Nazi Germany. As for the last sentence - as a woman, I have more to fear from that than you ever would, so stick it in your a$$.

So, go ahead and put me on ignore ...

 

[Citizen]

No, the military involvement was NOT government involvement...

No matter how you weasel, twist, and alter meanings, you're not going to get out from under the idea that military is government.

Remember earlier when I said I would love to be entertained hearing how you were gonna explain a demand for silence wasn't a demand for no speech? Well, it seems you've decided to pry at another angle. Fine, go ahead.

Military is not government. Uh-huh. Suuuuuuuure. Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

"Praise Allah, from who all blessings come. Do not disrespect the Unknowns! Or, I'll come up with the most specious, complex, fact-burying specious reasoning to prove you wrong!"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

 

[Griz]

Well, for one thing, they (1A rights) stop here on this forum, and any other Internet forum which are privately owned.

I agree

When vacationers enter the complex of the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier, they relinguish the same free speech rights they can enjoy on the beach or at a picnic table in a campground.

How does one arrive at this conclusion?

 

[MilProGuy]

"Praise Allah, from who all blessings come.

I never had any idea that you were of Islamic faith.

 

[SFCRetired]

From the official Arlington National Cemetery website:

>>The Army National Cemeteries Program, consisting of Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia and Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery in Washington, DC, are under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. The Secretary of the Army consolidated authorities and created the Executive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program to effectively and efficiently develop, operate manage and administer the program.<<

As such, it can probably be argued that those two cemeteries are, in fact, military installation under the command and control of the U.S.Army. That being the case, your only rights while on that reservation come, not from the Constitution, but from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And, yes, you civilians who are on a military reservation are just as subject to the UCMJ as those who are in uniform. The only difference is that, if you commit a violation, you will be taken in front of a federal magistrate instead of a court martial.

I would also not be so very sure that the Guard's weapon is unloaded. As someone else pointed out, those guards are not entirely ceremonial.

 

[since9]

That being the case, your only rights while on that reservation come, not from the Constitution, but from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And, yes, you civilians who are on a military reservation are just as subject to the UCMJ as those who are in uniform. The only difference is that, if you commit a violation, you will be taken in front of a federal magistrate instead of a court martial.

Not true. <--- Linky.

 

[SFCRetired]

Not true. <--- Linky.

All I know is that several miscreants on Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, who happened to be civilians were, according to the post paper, charged under the appropriate articles of the UCMJ and brought before a federal magistrate. The charges ranged from attempted rape to armed robbery. Just as a guess, the federal prosecutor, in bringing charges, did not charge under the UCMJ, but changed to the appropriate section of the U.S. Code.

One of you lawyers on here tell us who is right. IANAL and I don't play one on television. I was, however, a senior NCO and, as such, was charged with being conversant with the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts Martial.

I would not cite Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. I've caught both Wikipedia and Snopes in some wildly inaccurate utterances.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I'm going to kick a dead horse.

Free SPEECH is exactly that. SPEAKING.

The focus of the founders was ensuring anyone could get on a soap box and argue against government policy without the authorities grabbing him and throwing him in prison. I cannot believe the men who signed the constitution could imagine the world 200 years later where a gaggle of people could act like giggling idiots at a national shrine too war vets without having addressed it. I'm sure they couldn't imagine abortion, machine guns, nuclear weapons, crack or suicide bombers on airplanes either. That's why they made the laws elastic, so that as times and technology changed we the people could discuss the best way to deal with things, so that society did not fall into disorder and so that government did not become too repressive.

 

[wrightme]

I'm going to kick a dead horse.

Free SPEECH is exactly that. SPEAKING.

The focus of the founders was ensuring anyone could get on a soap box and argue against government policy without the authorities grabbing him and throwing him in prison. I cannot believe the men who signed the constitution could imagine the world 200 years later where a gaggle of people could act like giggling idiots at a national shrine too war vets without having addressed it. I'm sure they couldn't imagine abortion, machine guns, nuclear weapons, crack or suicide bombers on airplanes either. That's why they made the laws elastic, so that as times and technology changed we the people could discuss the best way to deal with things, so that society did not fall into disorder and so that government did not become too repressive.

"Speech" is typically understood to be expression, where the BoR is involved.

 

[Brass Magnet]

"Speech" is typically understood to be expression, where the BoR is involved.

Agree, and even if it weren't, what about the 9A? Why is the 9A treated like the "red headed step child" of the BoR?

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk