Censorship? A good thing?

[Marxist Nutter]

Are there limits to freedom?

When is censorship a good idea, if ever? what is or is not ok and in what
Context? debate this issue here? Let people know what
U think about it. what is OK to say or show and what is
Not ok for people
To say?

[Tantal]

Are there limits to freedom?

When is censorship a good idea, if ever? what is or is not ok and in what
Context? debate this issue here? Let people know what
U think about it. what is OK to say or show and what is
Not ok for people
To say?As long as the speech doesn't go into absolute slander or libel, ANYTHING should be allowed.

Some countries are adopting "hate speech" legislation, and there are some in the U.S. that want it too. My problem with such laws is that once you've created this special category of speech that's no longer protected by our 1st Amendment, who's to say what else can be added to it? The legislature? If that's the case, then we might as well not have a 1st Amendment to begin with. I think that speech that's vile should be pointed out as being vile, but for the government to prohibit me from saying certain things goes against the very foundation upon which my country was founded. How would you feel, Nutter, if the government made speech promoting a leftist ideology illegal?

[Marxist Nutter]

As long as the speech doesn't go into absolute slander or libel, ANYTHING should be allowed.

Some countries are adopting "hate speech" legislation, and there are some in the U.S. that want it too. My problem with such laws is that once you've created this special category of speech that's no longer protected by our 1st Amendment, who's to say what else can be added to it? The legislature? If that's the case, then we might as well not have a 1st Amendment to begin with. I think that speech that's vile should be pointed out as being vile, but for the government to prohibit me from saying certain things goes against the very foundation upon which my country was founded. How would you feel, Nutter, if the government made speech promoting a leftist idealogy illegal?

I tend to agree with absolute freedom of speech. But when is it ok to swear on TV? What about protecting children?
U mention slander and libel as examples of how u may limit free speech. Both cases are illegal- should the courts be able to decide what you can cannot say? Incitement to riot is illegal (as is advocating terrorism), in the UK for example, do you agree with that?

I take a radical free speech stance myself; but surely others may argue there should be limits in what people can say or do especially in public or on the TV????:confused:.....It is a complex issue this, I feel...

[cajunsnake]

I tend to agree with absolute freedom of speech. But when is it ok to swear on TV? What about protecting children?
U mention slander and libel as examples of how u may limit free speech. Both cases are illegal- should the courts be able to decide what you can cannot say? Incitement to riot is illegal (as is advocating terrorism), in the UK for example, do you agree with that?

I take a radical free speech stance myself; but surely others may argue there should be limits in what people can say or do especially in public or on the TV????:confused:.....It is a complex issue this, I feel...

I've always seen freedom of speech as a tricky item at best. If I have the freedom of speech, why am I told where or when I can pray? As far as t.v. and protecting the children, I would assume that the parents would be the one's to monitor what their children would watch. Failing that, viewers should then contact that station and voice their opposition to what they are putting on t.v.

As far as incitement to riot, all you have to do is look at Berkley in the early 60's. What stemmed from there was the effects of freedom of speech.

As for censurship, IMO, everybody has their own ideas about this. I've lived long enough to see cigerette ads removed from magazines, but alchol ads still there. One just as bad as the other. I remember certain books not allowed in the school liberary. Is, or was, it right...I don't think so. But then by whose standards would be used for this censurship? What group would be incharge of determining what the rest of us should see or read?

I'm pretty thick skinned, so there isn't a lot of things that would offend me. But maybe you aren't. Now should I be allowed to saying whatever I want to you? Common sense tellings me no. IE. When I returned from Vietnam, people had the right to call me whatever they wanted...but I had the right to react to what they said. This goes along with the freedom of speech. I don't like Bush, but if I voiced my desire for his demise, then I better be ready for what happens next.

As far as what is show, be it t.v., books whatever, I have the choice to view it or not...to allow my children to be exposed to it. In the case of t.v., there's a button that changes the channel or turns it off...I can use that and eliminate the problem. Books or magazines are the same way. Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner are two good examples of adult magazines. Larry Flynt, from the time he started, ran into problems with obsenity laws. How do determine what is art and what's porn? Hefner had the same problem, when he started Playboy, back in the late 50's. With Hefner, he had a little class in what he did, but did that make Flynt wrong? Socity itself, each of us, has to determine what we'll stand for and what we won't. And in this case...children are NOT a consideration (just thought I'd make that clear:p)

My question would be, you take the radical speech stance, are you also prepared to take credit for the outcome of that radical speech, by that I mean what may, or may not, happen because of it? My opinion is, we are each respondsible for what we say, or do, it goes with the freedom.


SNAKE

[Tantal]

But then by whose standards would be used for this censurship? What group would be incharge of determining what the rest of us should see or read?


SNAKE
There's the rub. Lefties would like for the PC crowd and leftist intellectuals to make such determinations, while conservatives would have such decisions made by the church. As stated before, I'm a conservative libertarian, but the libertarian is the most important to me. The problem is that once you let either of these groups decide what we can and cannot say, all of our freedoms will go out the window.

[cajunsnake]

There's the rub. Lefties would like for the PC crowd and leftist intellectuals to make such determinations, while conservatives would have such decisions made by the church. As stated before, I'm a conservative libertarian, but the libertarian is the most important to me. The problem is that once you let either of these groups decide what we can and cannot say, all of our freedoms will go out the window.

Well, for me, in my entire life I've never tried to figure out what I am, politically. I just don't like haven't someone telling me how to live, or what me or my family can or cannot do. That goes for special interest groups(Religious Right) or the government. I feel I'm respondsible for my own actions, and if I'm wrong, own up to it.

I agree, if either is allowed a toe hold, then we spend the rest of our lives being dictated to, and that just rubs me the wrong way.



SNAKE

[Tantal]

Well, for me, in my entire life I've never tried to figure out what I am, politically. I just don't like haven't someone telling me how to live, or what me or my family can or cannot do. That goes for special interest groups(Religious Right) or the government. I feel I'm respondsible for my own actions, and if I'm wrong, own up to it.

I agree, if either is allowed a toe hold, then we spend the rest of our lives being dictated to, and that just rubs me the wrong way.



SNAKE
Congratulations. You're at least part libertarian as well.

[cajunsnake]

Congratulations. You're at least part libertarian as well.


Ok:rolleyes:. Always figured somewhere down the road they'd throw a label on me.:)


SNAKE

[Dr The Evidence]

What the ****? I just don't give a ****. There's no ****ing way. **** that.

What better way to start talking about censorship than with a few examples.

Seriously, I don't mind not being able to write "****" on a message board. It works the same way as bleeping it out on TV, the act of censorship tells you what the word is. No problem. Sensitive souls are spared from the profanity and everyone else just gets the gist. Its like just being told about Jim Davidson's views on racism.

So, Manhunt 2 is getting released. Big Whup. For those not in the know, Manhunt 2 is a (not very good) XBOX 360 game that was previously banned by the BBFC for, and I quote "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone". I'm starting a campaign to ban the cast of Eastenders for the exact same reason.

Forget the fact the game is rated 18. Forget the fact that far more graphic games (and films) slip by the BBFC on an almost monthly basis. Forget that the game is already on sale in the US. What this is really about is way, way back in 2004 the makers of the original Manhunt were sued, by the family of a boy killed in what they argued was an attack inspired by the violence in the game. The link was never proven in court, but, mud sticks. Eventually an ad-hoc withdrawl from sale happened across the country. Ministers like Keith Vaz said that these games should be banned. Keith also said there were games on the market where you could "rape women", a claim disputed at the time, and ever since. Someone should really take away his DS, its obviously affecting his judgement...

What do you think about censorship? In the media, on the internet, even just in life? There seems to be a duality here. On the one hand, we have to be very careful of what we say out loud, and yet the rules governing media are being relaxed. I think it is worrying that standards seem to be slipping when it comes to rating media that is violent. Has anyone seen The Dark Knight? I'm guessing by its box office that a few of us have. How that film is rated 12A, where a child of any age can see it as long as their older sibling wants to go too, is beyond me. Sure, most of the violence is implied, but surely the tone is a little mature for a 10 year old. Ya think?

If anyone's got any other examples I'd like to hear them.

[Tete123]

The irony with regards this thread - It passed through moderation, meaning I was required to censor if required any offending material before submitting, not based on anybody actually being offended but on my interpretation of forum rules and the contents adherence to my interpretation of these rules.

Now, what gives me the right to determine what is or isn't offensive? I'm obviously bound by a set of forum rules, but as I said, this is based on my interpretation of them - and that is the fundamental problem I have with censorship, there are too many variable that determine how we view material, speech, film etc in accordance to our 'world view'.

The concept that we have 'rights' (contestable itself) to 'Freedom of Speech' and 'Freedom of Expression' is bound by various limitations written in law such as 'hate speech' or 'pornography'. Article 18 & 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights read:

Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
John Stuart Mills - "there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."

But Mills did recognise how this could be harmful and thus introduced the concept of the 'harm principle' by asserting:

"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

In 1985 Joel Frieberg, claiming that Mills' 'Harm Principal' set the bar too high - introduced the concept that became the 'offense principal'. He argued that certain expression should be restricted by law to prevent serious offense and thus we have the situation today, in which, we have the 'right' to Free Speech & Expression' but legal contradictions preventing or limiting those rights.

The question is: Should we have the 'Human Rights' of 'Free Speech' and 'Expression'; or should Governments protect those that need protecting (Children, Minorities etc) by enforcing laws to limit such 'Freedoms'?

[Marxist Nutter]

Tete maybe merge this thread with

http://www.politic.co.uk/legal-debate/10722-censorship-good-thing.html

Also i wonder how many of my posts have been flagged for moderation!!!????:cool:

did anyone have a real close look at this post for example?
http://www.politic.co.uk/legal-debate/10722-censorship-good-thing.html#post48789 (http://www.politic.co.uk/legal-debate/10722-censorship-good-thing.html#post48789)

he he

[Tete123]

Tete maybe merge this thread with

http://www.politic.co.uk/legal-debate/10722-censorship-good-thing.html

Also i wonder how many of my posts have been flagged for moderation!!!????

did anyone have a real close look at this post for example?
http://www.politic.co.uk/legal-debate/10722-censorship-good-thing.html#post48789 (http://www.politic.co.uk/legal-debate/10722-censorship-good-thing.html#post48789)

he he

Threads merged.. and yes I had noticed:D

How many.. Well with the words 'Marxist' and 'Nutter' forming your username the easiest way to check is by having a look at your latest post count...:rolleyes:

[cajunsnake]

What the ****? I just don't give a ****. There's no ****ing way. **** that.

What better way to start talking about censorship than with a few examples.

Seriously, I don't mind not being able to write "****" on a message board. It works the same way as bleeping it out on TV, the act of censorship tells you what the word is. No problem. Sensitive souls are spared from the profanity and everyone else just gets the gist. Its like just being told about Jim Davidson's views on racism.

So, Manhunt 2 is getting released. Big Whup. For those not in the know, Manhunt 2 is a (not very good) XBOX 360 game that was previously banned by the BBFC for, and I quote "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone". I'm starting a campaign to ban the cast of Eastenders for the exact same reason.

Forget the fact the game is rated 18. Forget the fact that far more graphic games (and films) slip by the BBFC on an almost monthly basis. Forget that the game is already on sale in the US. What this is really about is way, way back in 2004 the makers of the original Manhunt were sued, by the family of a boy killed in what they argued was an attack inspired by the violence in the game. The link was never proven in court, but, mud sticks. Eventually an ad-hoc withdrawl from sale happened across the country. Ministers like Keith Vaz said that these games should be banned. Keith also said there were games on the market where you could "rape women", a claim disputed at the time, and ever since. Someone should really take away his DS, its obviously affecting his judgement...

What do you think about censorship? In the media, on the internet, even just in life? There seems to be a duality here. On the one hand, we have to be very careful of what we say out loud, and yet the rules governing media are being relaxed. I think it is worrying that standards seem to be slipping when it comes to rating media that is violent. Has anyone seen The Dark Knight? I'm guessing by its box office that a few of us have. How that film is rated 12A, where a child of any age can see it as long as their older sibling wants to go too, is beyond me. Sure, most of the violence is implied, but surely the tone is a little mature for a 10 year old. Ya think?

If anyone's got any other examples I'd like to hear them.

IMO, I think it's more common sense. Here on these boards (and others that I'm on), I know there are ladies(hey Southern upbringing:rolleyes:) so what I might, or might not, say is my respondsiblity. I also know that kids, younger ones, have a habit of getting on the computer, or may be in the position to read what I write. I cannot restrict what others say here, that's what we have TETE for, so I have to police myself.

As the Doctor was saying, though, with games...or movies...even t.v. now you got a whole different ballgame. As for the games, I was lucky enough, that our kids were grown and gone, by the time they started coming out good. I'm still trying to figure PacMan. But, thankfully they monitor what their kids buy and play. But my all time favorite is the music...rap. I'm not a prude, or a tight *** about it, but sometimes they go a little to far? I'm pretty sure we all know the lyrics, but they are allowed. But here's one for you. Some of the songs are sprinkled heavyly with the N word, ok? But then if I use the same N word, I'm looking to get my removed.

But for the most part, is censorship good or do we need it? Well, I have a problem with government telling what I can and cannot do. Ok, now that being said...I do feel we each should police our own selves, if we don't went them in our business. For me, I know you have the right to free speech...but M.F., G.D., B****...when my wife and I are having dinner out...that kinda makes me ignorant. There is no swearing in our home, so I take offense to it. Others it doesn't seem to bother.

Again, IMO, it all boils down to common sense, or a lack there of.



SNAKE

[Tete123]

IMO, I think it's more common sense. Here on these boards (and others that I'm on), I know there are ladies(hey Southern upbringing:rolleyes:) so what I might, or might not, say is my respondsiblity. I also know that kids, younger ones, have a habit of getting on the computer, or may be in the position to read what I write. I cannot restrict what others say here, that's what we have TETE for, so I have to police myself.

As the Doctor was saying, though, with games...or movies...even t.v. now you got a whole different ballgame. As for the games, I was lucky enough, that our kids were grown and gone, by the time they started coming out good. I'm still trying to figure PacMan. But, thankfully they monitor what their kids buy and play. But my all time favorite is the music...rap. I'm not a prude, or a tight *** about it, but sometimes they go a little to far? I'm pretty sure we all know the lyrics, but they are allowed. But here's one for you. Some of the songs are sprinkled heavyly with the N word, ok? But then if I use the same N word, I'm looking to get my removed.

But for the most part, is censorship good or do we need it? Well, I have a problem with government telling what I can and cannot do. Ok, now that being said...I do feel we each should police our own selves, if we don't went them in our business. For me, I know you have the right to free speech...but M.F., G.D., B****...when my wife and I are having dinner out...that kinda makes me ignorant. There is no swearing in our home, so I take offense to it. Others it doesn't seem to bother.

Again, IMO, it all boils down to common sense, or a lack there of.



SNAKE



I tend to agree with your common sense theory Snake, but the point I was attempting to make (admittedly poorly) is one in which individual perception differs considerably of what is or isn't acceptable depending on world view. Fortunately most members respect the forum rules but some tread the line in religious and racial discourse in my opinion, but thats the crux of the debate - It's only my opinion; to them what they are posting is the expression of their conscience or thoughts and is perfectly acceptable.

Swearing is a minor issue, common decency dictates my views on this but it's amazing how often a comment bordering on racism actually has the expletives asterisked out - Like the swear word is the item that requires censorship rather than the racist diatribe that will cause offence.

I too have a problem being told what I can say, or what I can do, but would rather know that there is law in place to prevent racial or religious hatred from advancing from discourse to violent action - a real possibility if the call to arms (action) isn't prevented in it's infancy. It's worth noting that I do not feel we have 'Freedom of Speech' - as is often claimed, as any action to limit or suppress (e.g race hate speech) prevents the literal idea of 'Freedom' itself. 'Freedom of Speech' is a human construct as are the laws that prevent it - It's our Governments way of giving a 'right' (another human construct) then taking it back, little by little.

[cajunsnake]

[quote=Tete123;49818]I tend to agree with your common sense theory Snake, but the point I was attempting to make (admittedly poorly) is one in which individual perception differs considerably of what is or isn't acceptable depending on world view. Fortunately most members respect the forum rules but some tread the line in religious and racial discourse in my opinion, but thats the crux of the debate - It's only my opinion; to them what they are posting is the expression of their conscience or thoughts and is perfectly acceptable.

Religion, race and politics...pretty will get anybody going. Found that out with the BNP thread. I think though, and correct me if this isn't what you're talking about, because we come different countries, even different areas of the same country...it would seem that it is true that we have our concept and assume that others follow the same line of thinking. But...not always true. I agree with your opinion about expression though. I automatically assume that other people, speak their mind...are straight forward. Sometimes I've been wrong.

Swearing is a minor issue, common decency dictates my views on this but it's amazing how often a comment bordering on racism actually has the expletives asterisked out - Like the swear word is the item that requires censorship rather than the racist diatribe that will cause offence.

I agree. But then I have found that there are those who learned how to skirt around both and get their meaning across. It's the subtle undertone, that has always gotten me. Then when called on it...that's not what they said...you must be mistaken.

I too have a problem being told what I can say, or what I can do, but would rather know that there is law in place to prevent racial or religious hatred from advancing from discourse to violent action - a real possibility if the call to arms (action) isn't prevented in it's infancy. It's worth noting that I do not feel we have 'Freedom of Speech' - as is often claimed, as any action to limit or suppress (e.g race hate speech) prevents the literal idea of 'Freedom' itself. 'Freedom of Speech' is a human construct as are the laws that prevent it - It's our Governments way of giving a 'right' (another human construct) then taking it back, little by little.


I think growing up at the end of Segregation and the beginning of Civil Rights, has given me a good insight. A lot of what I remember, some of it are in the history books, a lot isn't. Which is why, for me I find it a touchy subject. Case in point: James Mereideth fought his way in Oxford University, Mississippi. 13 people died(from a book by one of the reporters "We shall overcome") because of a lot of under the table dealings. Point is, the next year when asked he was going to return, he said no...he only went to show he could. So this is why when I've started reading about the BNP, I see the same thing. The only difference is the way the dress. And, as was pointed out to me, the U.K. is smaller. So, though, like you, I don't like the idea of a government getting into my business, I'm glad that laws are in place to limit what the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Ayren Brotherhood.

But I agree about the Government making a law and slowly taking it back a little at a time. We've got the Patroit Act.



SNAKE

[Tete123]

[quote=Tete123;49818]I tend to agree with your common sense theory Snake, but the point I was attempting to make (admittedly poorly) is one in which individual perception differs considerably of what is or isn't acceptable depending on world view. Fortunately most members respect the forum rules but some tread the line in religious and racial discourse in my opinion, but thats the crux of the debate - It's only my opinion; to them what they are posting is the expression of their conscience or thoughts and is perfectly acceptable.

Religion, race and politics...pretty will get anybody going. Found that out with the BNP thread. I think though, and correct me if this isn't what you're talking about, because we come different countries, even different areas of the same country...it would seem that it is true that we have our concept and assume that others follow the same line of thinking. But...not always true. I agree with your opinion about expression though. I automatically assume that other people, speak their mind...are straight forward. Sometimes I've been wrong.

Swearing is a minor issue, common decency dictates my views on this but it's amazing how often a comment bordering on racism actually has the expletives asterisked out - Like the swear word is the item that requires censorship rather than the racist diatribe that will cause offence.

I agree. But then I have found that there are those who learned how to skirt around both and get their meaning across. It's the subtle undertone, that has always gotten me. Then when called on it...that's not what they said...you must be mistaken.

I too have a problem being told what I can say, or what I can do, but would rather know that there is law in place to prevent racial or religious hatred from advancing from discourse to violent action - a real possibility if the call to arms (action) isn't prevented in it's infancy. It's worth noting that I do not feel we have 'Freedom of Speech' - as is often claimed, as any action to limit or suppress (e.g race hate speech) prevents the literal idea of 'Freedom' itself. 'Freedom of Speech' is a human construct as are the laws that prevent it - It's our Governments way of giving a 'right' (another human construct) then taking it back, little by little.


I think growing up at the end of Segregation and the beginning of Civil Rights, has given me a good insight. A lot of what I remember, some of it are in the history books, a lot isn't. Which is why, for me I find it a touchy subject. Case in point: James Mereideth fought his way in Oxford University, Mississippi. 13 people died(from a book by one of the reporters "We shall overcome") because of a lot of under the table dealings. Point is, the next year when asked he was going to return, he said no...he only went to show he could. So this is why when I've started reading about the BNP, I see the same thing. The only difference is the way the dress. And, as was pointed out to me, the U.K. is smaller. So, though, like you, I don't like the idea of a government getting into my business, I'm glad that laws are in place to limit what the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Ayren Brotherhood.

But I agree about the Government making a law and slowly taking it back a little at a time. We've got the Patroit Act.



SNAKE


Any issue that incorporates race, religion and politics will always be contentious to some degree. Full and Frank debate can do much to bring about a better or more concise understanding, but only if people enter with an open mind. I have been openly critical of religion - this isn't to say that I dislike those who advocate religion and have faith, or that I don't understand why they have faith.. My intention is always to question their religion and ask that they question it too, to discover how their faith fits into this religion; this all too often is perceived as an attack on their faith itself and leads to heated debate, which often spirals out of control. I've never said that I dislike Muslims.. but, I detest Islam; Christianity (New Test) does much to promote peace and unity, but, has been the root cause of much suffering throughout history - Is it unfair to question the integrity of religion itself, I think not; will my views alter another persons, I'd hope so, but more than likely not.. it's still worth debating even if an outcome or agreement can't be found. Now, what we believe is determined by our life experiences; our education; our present situations etc - we can all be influenced by the media, our peers, our religion or the latest craze (companies spend fortunes on advertising because it works,) what I dislike is the person who believes something but doesn't know why. I fear I have swayed off topic (I should know better). In short, yes your interpretation is right. We assume too much, understand too little and prejudice too often based on our own thoughts, that when articulated into written word - is all too often misunderstood, misinterpreted and causes offence based on our own believes and situations.

When race is considered, things become even more complex. I was watching an old episode of Question Time last night (I'm not sure if you know of Question Time, but it's a panel based question and answer session with politicians and people in the public eye.. with questions posed by members of the public) and the issue of 'Stop & Search' laws was under discussion in relation to knife crime - an audience member asked why Black youths were 7 times more likely to be stopped in London and whether racism played a part - not a single panel member answered that the majority of deaths in London in 2007 and 2008 were caused by Black on Black knife attacks.. surely constraints to open debate, caused by excessive PC laws mean it's now wrong to say - The reason Blacks youths are more likely to be stopped in London is because they are most likely to carry and use knives.. by hiding behind PC'ness more teenagers will die - Black teenagers mainly and yet it could be interpreted as racist to say - they are the problem themselves.. Does this make me racist.. In some peoples eyes probably.. it's open to interpretation.

The thing that annoys me is when Race & Religion are conflated - this is why I dislike the rhetoric reg Muslims in Britain.. where you can't make a distinction between a persons race and their religion.. you often hear 'send them home' (regardless of where they were born) and attempts are made to prevent Freedom of Religion which in theory has the same legal 'rights' (maybe more) as Freedom of Speech or Expression. Yet those that look to prevent the practise of the Muslim faith are often the first to speak in defence of their Freedoms of Speech - I strongly disagree with spreading hate through speech.. whether the Muslim Cleric or the BNP activist. This is why I support a certain degree of illegality in such discourse but the danger is, where does this end, when will the Freedom to criticise the Government become a crime? (Awaiting the accusation that Britain is turning into Soviet Russia and it won't be long).

[Tantal]

The irony with regards this thread - It passed through moderation, meaning I was required to censor if required any offending material before submitting, not based on anybody actually being offended but on my interpretation of forum rules and the contents adherence to my interpretation of these rules.

Now, what gives me the right to determine what is or isn't offensive?
Censorship only applies to government action. You have the right to allow or disallow anything on this board because it is a private domain that the rest of us merely have access to. If we don't like something here, we are free to click the log-out button. This website is private property for the owner to manage as he/she sees fit.

I wouldn't allow someone to enter my home and use foul language in front of my kids. If they did, they'd be asked to leave. When the government does it, there is little to no recourse.