Skip to main content

View Diary: Fort Knox nixes Nugent performance (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm afraid... (8+ / 0-)
    Let's not make him a martyr.
    ...its' too late for that.

    I'm not sure how this could be a First Amendment issue. They should be perfectly with their rights to decide who is and who isn't appropriate to appear.

    Score Card: Marriages won by me, 1. Marriages destroyed by me, 0.

    by Steven Payne on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 10:25:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The Army is a government agency (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Steveningen

      This is state action.

      There is a First Amendment implication. Is it a violation? Probably not, But there is a question.  

      •  I understand what you are saying (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Damnit Janet, SwedishJewfish

        It does give more fodder for the wingnuts to belch about. We'll have to agree to disagree whether this was an appropriate response.

        Score Card: Marriages won by me, 1. Marriages destroyed by me, 0.

        by Steven Payne on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 10:44:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There are limits on the freedom of speech, (5+ / 0-)

        it is well established law. A lunatic who makes not so veiled comments about his desire to assassinate the Commander in Chief can have his freedom to entertain the Commander's subordinates limited. If you think that's a First Amendment issue, volunteer to represent Nugent. We'll see how that works out for you.

        The wing nuts don't need a reason to feel victimized, so they can stew on this. As for the public at large,  this doesn't have the necessary elements to become a cause célèbre. Many people still believe assassination talk, even when it is hyperbole or to just get some yucks, crosses a line. Does the right really want it advertized?

      •  The military is free (6+ / 0-)

        to constrain the free speech, and other constitutional rights, of it's members, unlike other government agencies. They also control what goes out over AFN radio.

        IANAL, but doesn't the military play by somewhat different rules than the rest of the government?

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 02:42:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ted Nugent is not in the military (0+ / 0-)

          But screw it, you guys make it up as you like,

          •  dude, stop grasping at straws. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, SwedishJewfish, lgcap

            Bottom line is, the military is within its rights to not have a performer on base who espouses contempt for the Commander In Chief.

            Ask any commissioned officer about this.

            There is no 1st A issue here, any more than the commerce clause allows government to compel individuals to consume corporate products.  

            Sheesh.  

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 08:07:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They can;t punish for speech (0+ / 0-)

              folsk who are not in the military.
              L
              ook, the srtupid is sotrng in this thread.
              T
              he actions can be defended but not the way you people are doing it.

              This is just a shit load of stupid in this thread,.

              •  Armando, this is costing you credibility. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior, Buckeye54, lgcap, SwedishJewfish

                Fact: enlisted and commissioned members of the military services are prohibited by military regulations from "expressing contempt for the Commander in Chief."

                That is not even arguable, any more than the fact that ice cream is cold.  Go ask anyone who is or has been a CO or NCO.  

                Fact: base commanders have among their responsibilities the maintenance of "good order and discipline."  Again, go ask anyone in uniform about that one.

                Inference: a base commander can dis-invite a speaker or performer who will undermine good order and discipline by virtue of having espoused contempt for the C-in-C.

                Nugent has no more inherent right to perform on a military base, or even set foot on a military base than you or I do.  Civilians are permitted on base subject to the approval of the chain of command, and subject to the rules of the base, and that only.  

                Nobody here is asserting that Ted the Ped does not have a right to perform at all.  He can perform in any venue that will have him, and he has the same 1st A rights to peddle his crap as you and I do to peddle our respective viewpoints.  And service members have every right to listen to his crappy music and crappier politics subject to the time/place/manner issues around life on base and life in uniform.  

                If you keep insisting that he has some kind of 1st A right to perform on a military base, or that service members have some kind of 1st A right to have him perform on a military base, you're just going to make a fool of yourself.  

                "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 12:24:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Look (0+ / 0-)

                  I said from the word go that isd thas First Amendment IMPLICATIONS.

                  English mfer do you speak it?

                  II'm commenitng on dkos' oenchant to celebrate this sort of thing when it;s one of them and to dneounce it when it is one of oours.

                  This has a First Amendment implication.

                  Period.

                  And not for nothing, but when it comes to credibility about speaking about the Constitution, having read your inanities on the Commerce Clause and ACA, I'm really not worried much about what you think about my "credibility.".

                  Here's what I know and deplore, if it had been on of ours banned from Fort Knox, you all would easuly see the Firsr Amendment implications,

                  The thread is ridiculous and stupid.

                  •  Sorry for the typos (0+ / 0-)

                    Phone commenting.

                    •  oh good, I was afraid you were.... (0+ / 0-)

                      .... PWI (Posting While Inebriated).  Good to know I'm not driving you to drink:-)

                      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                      by G2geek on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 06:47:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  if one of ours was kept out of Fort Knox... (0+ / 0-)

                    .... I'd be making the same arguement against those who were whining about it: that they have no sound reason to complain because whoever-it-is has no inherent right to perform at (or even go to) Fort Knox.  

                    The principle doesn't change depending on the identity of the speaker.  

                    What's more egregious is when private owners of property that is open to the general public, use their ownership to restrict the expression of political views on their property.  For example shopping mall owners inviting group A to set up tables and canvass, but throwing out group B for doing exactly the same thing.  And the reason that's egregious is that their private property is serving the same role as a public commons (and in some cases has displaced public commons, as in shopping malls vs. downtown areas), where the public generally has an right to come and go unmolested.   Unlike a military base where the public does not have a right to come and go at will.  

                    If the military was to ban its members from listening to Nugent's crappy music during their personal time and particularly when off-base, that would be arguable as a 1st A issue.  

                    As for the Commerce Clause and ACA, we'll see what the USSC does about that one.  If you're in the SF Bay Area, I'll bet you the cost of pizza at Zachary's (or dinner at any mutually agreed venue), on the outcome.

                    But if you're so confident of your reasoning on both of these matters, and seeing as you have no problem with bringing up one in the context of the other, I'll be happy to quote or close-paraphrase your comments about Nugent and military bases, in your next diary about the Commerce Clause and the ACA.  

                    BTW, for the sake of fairness in our arguements, I should disclose that I am presently playing Newtonian Billiard Balls.  

                    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 06:58:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  If they can decide (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, lgcap

            who gets to be on AFN, why can't they decide who plays a concert on the base?

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 08:49:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not exactly (0+ / 0-)

              And certainly this episode is different from choosing AFN.

              But let's all play dumb.

              •  Sorry if my question (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lgcap

                is dumb. IANAL.

                But are you saying the base commander, or anyone else in the military chain of command, has no say over who and what sort of entertainment is made available on the base? So who decides what to book? Is it random? First come first served? Can you explain why Ted Nugent has a right to play on the base?

                If he has no specific right to play there, then why can't the base commander say no?

                What is the difference between some functionary at the Pentagon deciding Rush is OK on AFN, or that Rachel Maddow isn't, and the base commander deciding who plays a concert on base?

                Can the commander bar a band of neo-Nazi skinheads from playing white supremacist rock on base?

                "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                by happy camper on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 04:43:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not saying that (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not playing this dumb game with you folks anyomroe.

                  Just remember this argument when someone is banned from being near the C-i-C  and when we have "Free speech zones".

                  The stupid in this thread is storong.

                  •  So exactly what (0+ / 0-)

                    are you saying?

                    Does a base commander have the authority to decide what sort of entertainment is provided for the soldiers under his command? How is that comparable to a free speech zone?

                    I'm not playing a game with you. I'm asking a serious question, one I assume you as a lawyer have some expertise to answer. If you don't want to answer it, then tell me and I'll shut the fuck up.

                    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                    by happy camper on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 08:16:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What exactly afre you saying? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      happy camper

                      That you are happy with a base commander deciding who performs on his base based on the content of his speech?

                      The law probably will support the commander's ability to do so.

                      But that has First Amendment implications.

                      It saddens and angers me to see so called progressives cheering this action.

                      That's what I am saying.

                      How about you? How would you feel if say, Al Franken had been banned from USO performances because he was critical of President Bush?

                      •  I'm not cheering anything, (0+ / 0-)

                        myself.

                        The law probably will support the commander's ability to do so.
                        Thank you.

                        I think Nugent is a dick, but I've thought that for a long time based on more than just the crap he spouted the other day. As for whether or not he--or Al Franken--should be allowed to play on the base, well, I'm undecided. His speech went well beyond disagreement, which I am fine with, and veered close enough to an incitement of violence or an outright threat to attract the attention of the Secret Service. If Franken had been telling Bush to suck on his machine gun, or exhorting fans to cut of some heads, I'd feel the same as I do about Nugent. I certainly disagree with posters who think Ted should be in jail for his speech. There is the underage girl thing, but that's a different matter...

                        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                        by happy camper on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 09:12:20 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I HATE Ted Nugent (0+ / 0-)

                          But it's the speech that's hated that needs the protecting.

                          At least, progressives USED to think so.

                          •  Ted is free (0+ / 0-)

                            to disagree, as he should be. He should be able to spout his toxic shit to all who are willing to listen.

                            My concern comes down to the near incitement to violence, and even then only because the venue--a military base--may imply to some people that the military, well known for a conservative outlook, may endorse, however indirectly or unofficially, the view that violence may be an appropriate response to political disagreement.

                            Yes, it's ridiculous. I know it, and you know it. But there are plenty of people out there who think that way, and who will see it that way.

                            If we were talking about banning Ted from some municipal music festival, I would say hell no, let the asshole play. Let him run his mouth all he wants.

                            As I said, I'm undecided, but I'm leaning toward not allowing someone who incites violence toward any political figure, especially the CiC, to entertain on a military base. It's the nature of his speech combined with the venue and the implications of that.

                            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                            by happy camper on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 10:22:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (146)
  • Community (77)
  • Baltimore (77)
  • Freddie Gray (57)
  • Bernie Sanders (54)
  • Civil Rights (45)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (34)
  • Media (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (25)
  • Environment (23)
  • Education (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (20)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site