President Trump to visit 2017 Jamboree

[Back Pack]

I was referring to the next election, if he makes it that far. We ARE going to have another one, right? I mean, these days one never knows what's going to change suddenly.

You write this in the same thread where people are advocating limiting the free speech of a sitting President???

 

I swear, what would guys do if you couldn't complain about Trump? I'm glad someone is protecting our right to free speech.

[Tampa Turtle]

Free speech is not the same as courtesy, kind, respectful, and appropriate speech. I have the constitutional right, for example, to drop the 'F' bomb in a church sermon but should be willing to accept the consequences of my actions. The issue is was his remarks appropriate to the setting and to the apolitical nature of scouting. 

[DuctTape]

Along those same lines, TT, the church can prohibit, censor, etc... any speech it desires. The free speech clause prohibits congress (and extended by the 14th amendment to the States) from abridging free speech. There is no constitutional free speech outside of governmental interference. Even there, it is not absolute.

[Col. Flagg]

Free speech is not the same as courtesy, kind, respectful, and appropriate speech. I have the constitutional right, for example, to drop the 'F' bomb in a church sermon but should be willing to accept the consequences of my actions. The issue is was his remarks appropriate to the setting and to the apolitical nature of scouting. 

 

Free speech is free in all instances except those limitations prescribed by the Constitution or case law. So we ALL have the right to say what we want, where we want and how we want to (within the law).

 

The issues here are 1) Should an organization like BSA (or any of its members) who has Citizenship as one of its core aims be talking about limiting anyone's right to free speech, and 2) What is appropriate language/topics/issues when speaking in front of such an organization and its members.

 

If BSA really wanted to make a statement they'd put on their big boy pants, get a meeting with Trump and let him know privately what their concerns are. That's a valid position. Their next meeting should be to have that SAME meeting with the band that spewed their own political venom during their Jambo session. You guys seem to be pretty silent on THAT display of partisan politics. Double-standard?

 

I'm not against BSA taking a stand. Heck, I wish they would have had this backbone long ago. But if they are truly going to be non-partisan they need to address both incidents and do so head on. Not in something as snively and weak like a press release.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[wdfa89]

ok BSA had hands tied a bit, gotta invite POTUS no matter who it is.  They had to know current POTUS would probably go off reservation with remarks (I mean, watch ANY other "similar" appearance like CIC Trophy presentation to AFA or the event at the USS Ford the week prior or well, you get it) if he chose to come.  I wonder if they were hoping T would not come and send any one of his Eagle cabinet members (or the VP) to speak in his place. 

 

It does get me thinking maybe he was proposing a change to the Motorboating merit badge requirements.

[NJCubScouter]

Nobody's free speech rights are being violated here.  As Ducttape says, the right to free speech is a right against government interference with (or punishment of) speech.  Criticizing what someone has said, or criticizing the person for saying it, does not affect his right to free speech, in fact the criticism is equally protected as "free speech."  

 

However, an organization such as the BSA has no obligation to allow anyone to use its events as a "platform" to make statements that are contrary to the values of the organization.  The BSA does not allow its programs to become a political platform.  I agree with part of Col. Flagg says:  The BSA, having made its very appropriate public statement, SHOULD meet with the president to make sure he understands what is and is not appropriate when speaking to a group of Boy Scouts, and if he cannot commit to respecting those limitations, he should not be invited to speak at any other Scouting events.

[Col. Flagg]

Nobody's free speech rights are being violated here.  As Ducttape says, the right to free speech is a right against government interference with (or punishment of) speech.  Criticizing what someone has said, or criticizing the person for saying it, does not affect his right to free speech, in fact the criticism is equally protected as "free speech."

 

There were posts in another thread about in future limiting or approving what the President (or others) might say if given the opportunity again. I would call that an abridgment of free speech.

 

 

However, an organization such as the BSA has no obligation to allow anyone to use its events as a "platform" to make statements that are contrary to the values of the organization.  The BSA does not allow its programs to become a political platform. 

ROFL. Did you actually use the "contrary to the values of the organization" line. What about the membership changes MANY didn't want? What about those values that got totally and utterly trodden over. You seem to scream when YOUR values are impinged but not very supportive of others when THEIR values are similarly mistreated.

 

BSA *DID* allow their platform to be politically charged. Did you not read or hear about the band member that made repeated pro-gay and anti-Trump remarks?? Or did you just elect to ignore it because it matches your ideology? You cannot be non-partisan when you are too busy trying to appease one side and not another.

 

You can't take the moral high ground supporting only one set of values and opinions. BSA (and you) are doing that without similarly calling out BOTH offenders. Otherwise your credibility on the matter is shot.

[Stosh]

Hypocrisy is measured by how far one deviates from a fair and balanced approach.  That sway can go either way.  It's the sway that matters.  I may not like what the band had to say anymore than what the President had to say.  But calling out the sway to one side or the other only indicates my tendency to leave a balanced fairness behind.  Staying "on bubble" takes a tremendous amount of tolerance, something people today don't seem to have much of. 

[Stosh]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/28/time-has-come-for-every-red-blooded-god-loving-patriot-to-sever-ties-with-boy-scouts-america.html

 

And so it begins...... (or at least continues....)

[ALongWalk]

There were posts in another thread about in future limiting or approving what the President (or others) might say if given the opportunity again. I would call that an abridgment of free speech.

 

 

ROFL. Did you actually use the "contrary to the values of the organization" line. What about the membership changes MANY didn't want? What about those values that got totally and utterly trodden over. You seem to scream when YOUR values are impinged but not very supportive of others when THEIR values are similarly mistreated.

 

BSA *DID* allow their platform to be politically charged. Did you not read or hear about the band member that made repeated pro-gay and anti-Trump remarks?? Or did you just elect to ignore it because it matches your ideology? You cannot be non-partisan when you are too busy trying to appease one side and not another.

 

You can't take the moral high ground supporting only one set of values and opinions. BSA (and you) are doing that without similarly calling out BOTH offenders. Otherwise your credibility on the matter is shot.

The band member didn't make "repeated" pro-gay and anti-Trump remarks. He briefly stated how proud he was of the BSA for making the LBGQT changes, he then went into a fairly long talk about how the kids should never be scared to be different...whatever that difference might be, then he told the scouts that he had heard the President was going to be there on Monday night and for them to let him know that it was ok for them to be different. I was worried that sown kids might take that too far but I was obviously wrong. My son was there and he is no fan of President Trump. What he is mad about is how the Scouts are being portrayed from both sides. All he really heard from Trump was his praise of Scouting.

[EmberMike]

If BSA really wanted to make a statement they'd put on their big boy pants, get a meeting with Trump and let him know privately what their concerns are. That's a valid position. Their next meeting should be to have that SAME meeting with the band that spewed their own political venom during their Jambo session. You guys seem to be pretty silent on THAT display of partisan politics. Double-standard?

 

You're absolutely right, the proper thing to do with you have issues with someone is to discuss it with them face to face. That's what Trump himself would do, right? He'd never do something like, for example, tweet attacks and name-calling at people he has issues with. 

 

Right? 

[hiker67]

One way to avoid these problems in the future is to simply end the title of honorary president.  BSA would no longer have a traditional obligation to invite all future presidents to speak; it could still invite them on a case-by-case basis -- especially if they were Scouts or Scouters themselves.  Having presidents as honorary BSA presidents may have had some advantage in the early 20th century when the Scouting organizations began and when political discourse seemed to be very different.  It should be pointed out that, as mentioned in the annual reports, living ex-presidents continue on as honorary vice-presidents of BSA.

Edited July 29, 2017 by hiker67

[Stosh]

There will be thousands of times in life where people will say things I don't like or disagree with, but I will defend free speech every time.  Dropping a sitting president from the historical tradition of Honorary President because of what he/she might say is tantamount to censorship. 

 

Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president.  He was elected by 39% of the people, the lowest popular vote in US history.  He was raked over the coals by pundits from both the North and the South.  He had a down-home stile of conversation and called a spade a spade in a joking manner.  When people complained when he put Grant in charge of the federal forces, that he had selected a drunkard, Lincoln responded by saying, if that be the case, send all my generals a case of whatever it is he's drinking.  History has noted his actions as laudable, but it took a long time.

 

If for one think today that JFK was one of our best presidents, a Democrat.  Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country is burned into my memory forever.  MLK's I have a dream and I wish that dream to come true some day.  How quickly we forget.  I thought Regan was a buffoon until I started listening carefully to what he had to say.

 

All these men were ahead of their time.  Only time will tell and it will be based on what he does, not what he says that will make the real difference.

 

And if anyone hadn't noticed, everyone of these great men were assassinated or attempted to be assassinated before they could even complete their destinies.  It is truly unfortunate people can't see through their anger and hatred while in the moment.  I hope history has a chance to break the cycle of what the US has done in the past to it's better leaders.  When anger and hatred get a hold of things, bad things happen and in the end, everyone suffers.  

 

Would we be the same country today if it weren't for Lincoln, Kennedy, or King?  How quickly we forget

Edited July 29, 2017 by Stosh

[EmberMike]

If for one think today that JFK was one of our best presidents, a Democrat.  Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country is burned into my memory forever.  MLK's I have a dream and I wish that dream to come true some day.  How quickly we forget.  I thought Regan was a buffoon until I started listening carefully to what he had to say.

 

All these men were ahead of their time.  Only time will tell and it will be based on what he does, not what he says that will make the real difference.

 

I'm misunderstanding something here. You're saying that what these leaders do matters more than what they say, but you mentioned how memorable they are because of what they said. Do you think Trump will or won't be remembered by his words over his actions?

[qwazse]

One way to avoid these problems in the future is to simply end the title of honorary president. BSA would no longer have a traditional obligation to invite all future presidents to speak; it could still invite them on a case-by-case basis -- especially if they were Scouts or Scouters themselves. Having presidents as honorary BSA presidents may have had some advantage in the early 20th century when the Scouting organizations began and when political discourse seemed to be very different. It should be pointed out that, as mentioned in the annual reports, living ex-presidents continue on as honorary vice-presidents of BSA.

Few things would make me seriously consider dropping ties with BSA, mailing in my Eagle, and striking it from my resume, than BSA abandoning this practice.

Of the program materials they provide, encounters with public servants is one of them.

 

Teach boys how to handle off-color speech, that's on us.

Edited July 29, 2017 by qwazse