Ryan Sorba is hated because he asks the question that is still awaiting a response: "where is the evidence that homosexuality is (i) innate and (ii) healthy?"
@vorzeichen89: The evidence homosexuality is innate has been coming in for 50 yrs. Of the nearly 1,600 species studied so far, all have have some form of homosexuality in them.. For the past 20 years, human brain scans have shown the differences between gay and straight brains (Google gay brains are different) and in recent years, the differences are visible in the brains of fetuses. Thus, science has shown that some humans, like some of every animal species, are born gay.
Why are you assholes judging Ryan Sorba such pricks... and little ones at that.
I respect him; he is a brave man. He explains himself well and all you intolerant unsophisticated hicks knuckle draggers can be as hypocritical as you want.
Ryan Sorba spends more time thinking about gay sex than any straight man on the planet. You don't suppose he's fascinated by it because he secretly wants it? No, that never happens.
@writerJerome Yes, I also find this to be the case. He's obsessed with sex - particularly the anal kind. Funny how the obsessions we see in others is so often our own obsessions projected onto normal people whom we despise for being normal.
Ryan, you are one sad pathetic human being. Do you have gay friends or family? I highly doubt it. And don't say you do, because I'm tired of these so-called "Christians" who say they "love their gay friends & family" but continually speak out against Equality and demean us when there are PLENTY of heterosexuals out there who just as, if not more promiscuous, then any gay person you may meet. (but i guess you're not speaking out against those straight people & their actions, are you?)
@funk7000 (Laughing) True to a point, but when I called him an ass*ole, it's because he is one. He's a bigot, and that is so sad. I feel sorry him, and I will pray for him. And to top it off, I will pray for you too! God Bless and may you love everyone - just just straight people.
One gay guy saying he chose it does not = homosexuality being a choice for everyone. I don't care if I was the only gay guy who claimed to not have chosen it. I know what I feel thank you very god damn much.
There are people that can not live without something to hate. In his world gays are a major problem. He sees this as fight he can win. When you can't change people or make them think like you, your next step is to want them to suffer. This is why he wants power and attention.
Lesbians, one and all. I would like to give you a little ammo against this guy. You really want to piss him off? Next time he speaks, you gather and chant this. "His name is Ryan Paulson!" TRUST ME... You will piss him off. Why? Because this was his name before he changed it. San Bernardino is ashamed of you Ryan Paulson! Changing your name because you hate your Dad? HONOR YOUR MOTHER, AND FATHER! That's a quote from your own good book. But you only listen to the rules you like.
LOL, these videos are hilarious. There's so many of Ryan making a fool of himself. The only reason they let him speak at all is so there's something to laugh at, lol. Watching him stumble, sweat and dodge questions that obviously prove he's wrong, is hilarious. Please post more, they're very entertaining!
most hated man around! i wonder what he gets out of this from a personal perspective. he is just despised by people. nobody likes him and I think in addition to the message, it is the messenger personality that is disturbing.
Then why do we say that the conversation devolved into violence? The debate has not evolved? In our language we do assign moral components to evolution. Can you see how language already defines devolution.
@ToxicOdiousOne Language. Why do Atheists say "goddammit"? Because our language asserts meaning to those phrases. "I'll believe it when pigs fly" doesn't actually mean that we'd believe something if pigs evolve wings and fly, it means it's ridiculous to believe. From a scientific point of view, devolution doesn't exist. In a language point of view, it does. However those two are very different.
So if you were present the moment that humans devolved into apes as Darwin's theory holds you would still consider that evolution? Evolution has no moral comoonent? If devolution can be evolution then everything is evolution and evolution becomes a meaningless distinction. How can there by no opposite to evolution?
@ToxicOdiousOne Yes, if humans evolved into apes it would still be evolution. Science in general has no moral component, it's just a collection of facts and laws.
Why must there be an opposite to everything? How can there be no opposite of 'snow'?
@ToxicOdiousOne Time machines don't exist, which would be the only way to see evolution work in reverse. Not to mention that watching something work in reverse would not make it "devolution", it would just be watching Evolution in reverse since logically the changes were being done in forward time movement.
Genetic losers are the disabled, homosexuals, the aged, the terminally infirmed, the fat, the druggies, etc . . . Any person who has cellular degeneration. This is not evolution but sometimes willful devolution. A man who does not produce anything and wastes his existance.
@ToxicOdiousOne The disabled, homosexuals, aged, fat, and druggies aren't genetic losers at all. The disabled are mainly disabled due to genetic mutations, which isn't a losing quality whatsoever but a less beneficial one. Homosexuals, again, are genetic mutations that one could argue is a beneficial way to limit population growth that results in overpopulation. Fat is not bad neither, as we are biologically inclined to eat. Druggies aren't mutated but are addicted, different thing entirely.
The fish experienced cellular damage as they do qith oil in the Gulf or toxic waste. Loss of sight is not evolution. Loss of anything from disability to mutations and birth defects are devolution. Natural selection weeds them out. What about women who choose genetic losers as mates?
@ToxicOdiousOne No, that would be evolution as well. Natural selection is a process in Evolution, but sometimes losses are quite beneficial when an appendage is no longer needed. You keep repeating that any loss is in this mythological "de" mode, which simply isn't so. Loss of gills is beneficial to land mammals simply because it allows for a better respiratory system.
Humans don't mate for better genomes primarily, so it's an invalid question for 'natural selection'. Define 'genetic losers'.
Isn't being handicapped as the result of an accident causing cellular degeneration hence devolution? If cells die is it not devolution? Aren't druggies devolved then?
If beings evolve what is stop them from devolving or reverting to an earlier genetic state? It can't just be one way in one direction. Equal and opposite forces act on beings.
If you went back in time it would be devolution. If there is evolution there must be devolution. Equal and opposite forces. Evolution in reverse. Devolution can result from toxic waste or could result in birth defects. Evolution is positive change. Devolution is negative change.
@ToxicOdiousOne Wrong. There are no negative changes, just less beneficial ones. The changes that are most beneficial progress and survive. Those that don't change or have less beneficial changes die out due to competition. Losing an appendage could be either a great beneficial adapatation or just a minor beneficial adaptation. For instance, fish losing eyes due to living in the dark is beneficial since the organ is unnecessary. They didn't devolve a loss of eyes, they evolved a loss of eyes.
@ToxicOdiousOne Absolutely not. Devolution doesn't exist in any form. Things evolve, they change. They gain beneficial appendages or lose unbeneficial appendages. Losing something doesn't make it "De" at all. It just means the species is more adapted without unnecessary attributes.
Species can devolve too. Not just genetic mutations but also creatures who cannot breed and carry life to a new generation. These genetic failures have devolved.
@ToxicOdiousOne There's no such thing as devolution. One only evolves. *rolls eyes* It's survival of the fittest, sometimes getting rid of an organ is beneficial.
@ToxicOdiousOne Every creature evolved and is currently evolving so your statement makes no sense, especially since we're talking about species. No species is exclusively homosexual, so to suggest a homosexual species would die out is just inane at best.
I support evolution. I said I was a Darwinist. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce they are unevolved. Homosexuality is a deathstyle which will extinct the human race.
@ToxicOdiousOne You don't really understand evolution whatsoever, do you? Homosexuality is beneficial to society as it limits the population. It also is useful in other organisms to halt violence. Most organisms would prefer orgasm to death. You also equating a sexual orientation as 'unevolved' greatly shows that you know nothing on the subject of evolution.
@CliffM85 there is a god and all the beneifits of homosexauilty are destoryed by all the std's like aids. and homosexauilty is a choice and they are politcally trying to force thier lifestyle on everyone. i dont hate gays i just dont agree with thier lifestyle and choice
@WiseKitsune No, actually there isn't a god. All the evidence points at the Christian Bible and Muslim Quran being scientifically, historically, and morally flawed enough to debunk the major stories in the texts. Homosexuality isn't a choice, however. If it were than the suicide rate of homosexual teenagers would be staggeringly low rather than depressingly high. They also don't try to force others to be homosexual, that'd be called rape. If you hate their lifestyle, you hate them. Period.
@Boromir26 If all you can do is name call and not produce intelligent arguments then I can safely assure you that I'm not afraid of your arguments. How about this....ask me how it benefits society. Then I'll tell you and you can debate me. Unless you want to reduce your argument to fifth grade "Yo momma" jokes. *rolls eyes*
Darwin was a racist who inspired marget Sanger aborting blacks and the Nazi's master race. There is a racist connection to evolution. I am an atheist. Do I quote any religious text? No I laugh at such moral supstitions.
@ToxicOdiousOne Facinating can you supply us with links on here to back up your misunderstanding of evolution. Because what I find funny is that people who demonize Darwin, and demonize evolution and know nothing about it seem to happily misuse it against minorities without any care. The christians used a incorrect idea of evolution against african american rights, back in the 40's-70's, and they try to use evolution against LGBT.
@ToxicOdiousOne You forgot about mutations, transpositions, elimination, replication, deletion and duplication of genes that factor into evolution. Funny part is... I am a psychology intern not a biologist and I still know these rudimentary facts on genes and evolution.
sodomy is "irrational and unnatural." hmmm, so he doesn't get handjobs or blowjobs i guess? neither produce children, so i'm sure he never takes part in such evil things. also, he never masturbates i'm sure, irrational and unnatural.
@BillKiernan it really depends. Sometimes they are just people who cant get laid. Sorba must really be compensating for something because that limp dick sure has an ax to grind.
@darkwolfx333 i mean, gay sex weirds me out too, but it has 0 effect on my life. if it weirds me out, my solution is, don't have gay sex. problem solved.
We so have a right to disrupt democratic processses. These are wacko liberals. They violated this man's Free Speech rights. We don't have a right to disrupt. Just as Code Pink has no right to disrupt Karl Rove's book signings. Surprise they actually arrest violators.
@ToxicOdiousOne Sugar, he was in consensus, you know what happens after the speech was done. The students patiently waited for him to finish to called this bigoted out one letter at a time.
I have no right to incite a riot or yell fire in a crowded theater. I have a right not to attend if attending would offend me. I have no right to shout down a speaker and infringe on his First Amendment rights. Karl Rove has recently said he requires armed guards at book signings now because of Code Pink.
@ToxicOdiousOne: Because this is a violent mob? Give me a timestamp for where they were violent. At what moment in this video to they step over the bounds of decency, much less the law? From everything we can see in this video, this was an open mic event wherein not everyone who spoke agreed completely with the speaker. As I understand it, this is the First Amendment at its best.
@ToxicOdiousOne There is a guy who stands outside my local starbucks, shouting his ideas about life from the street corner. And you know what? He has that right. If I wanted to respond, that is my right. Now, there is a difference in that this is a different setting; but you have yet to point to ANYTHING that makes this inappropriate. All you've done is vehemently state that you hate all homosexuals. Ok, we get that. But what does this have to do with how this rather polite crowd acted?
So because there is proof a pair of horses may have been homos, that's an argument for homosexuality? We're supposed to take examples from animals?? Dogs like to roll around feces and mark their territory? Are you going to follow their example?
A girl @ 4:45 says that sexuality is still misunderstood?! You mean to tell me that after thousands of years of human reproduction, we still don't know how it's done? Unbeleivable.
@jamezbond78 Yeah not to mention the work of Dr. John Gottmann, Judith Stacey and tens of thousands of doctors and scientist around the world that understand sexuality and sexual orientation knowing that "it is not fluid," but that "it IS fixed, and something a person does not choose and cannot be changed"
An angry mob gives a person a reasonable expectation of violence. Angry mobs need to be restrained not allowed to destroy the social order of society. We would be at the mercy of criminal anarchists then.
@ToxicOdiousOne well jeez hun with your sort of faulty logic, if that were the case then I guess native americans were wrong to fight their oppresses off, African americans should still be slaves and segregated, and women should not have the right to vote. I wonder what you must think of the second amendment...
@darkwolfx333 Self preservation is acceptable to a Darwinist. I think it was incorrect to treat them differently afterwards. It is not fair that they are exempt for taxes and eminent domain. Blacks are still slaves to racism. Women are slaves to sexism and their pruient sexual desires. The second amendment is a well regulated militia. We regulate guns. Guns are the people's liberty teeth.
@ToxicOdiousOne Darwinist? Funny because i am a scientist, who works in the psychological fields, not a "darwinist." Although your usage of the term makes clear you dont understand what evolution is. That is ok though, not everyone in america can will themselves to understand elementary science, we can forgive you on that. It is sad how religious people, not scientist, used evolution, which they dont wish to understand, to uphold bigotry against african americans; now they use it on LGBT.
Lawsude10 if they disagree with the speaker they have no right to attend to cause trouble. That is terrorism. We are to tolerate terrorism now. America is not a violent fascist State. Shouting down a speaker is a violent act that goes beyond protesting as it attacks his constitutional right.
@ToxicOdiousOne So then its perfectly ok to scream "BOMB" in a crowded place, despite the consequences of people getting hurt if not killed? When people like Sorba tell blatant lies, twist scientific data, and then fabricate opinions to condone the dehumanization and bigotry against a disenfranchised minority there is a line that is crossed and such a bigot must be called out. If he can speak his hate, he can be called out for it. Welcome to America, if you dont like it then LEAVE!
@tonykeywest07 Sweetheart in order to prove your statement you first have to prove the existence of god, because you cannot do so your outburst is funny but false. And lets just say religions are real (which they are not), which god hates gay people? Because out of the 200 religions on this planet the only ones with rewritten hypocritical bullshit that expressively condemning gay people are the three abrahamic faiths. So that is 197 to 3. You lose bitch.
@darkwolfx333 if there is a Bomb stupid then there is no lie now is there faggot. fags are an abomination and God destroyed sodom and gommorah because he hates fags. and if your fga ass dosnt believe it it is not binding on anyone. You will believe when you wake up in your just dessert- the lake of fire
@tonykeywest08 LOL you know i read a very failish fiction book the other day. It was very flat, one dimensional, and quite boring. It contradicted itself more than 600 times. It was the holy bible. Say what bitch?
@tonykeywest08 Oh i have read all 13 versions. From the ESV to the KJV. A few revisions here and there between the 13, shows how fallible the "word of man" is. In the end I find it funny that all the works of science in the last 150 years cannot (in your mind) equal the wisdom of cattle sacrificing primitives who believed every animal species was within walking distance of Noah's house. Oh btw I hope you dont like lobster *winks*
@darkwolfx333 sure you have if you d read it youd know more about the the works of God than the works of puny man so stop blabbering gibberish and OBEY - your full and final destruction is imminent. how do you like one of the latest works of God , the OIL spill looming in the gulf. DO not obey and be cursed your curses are coming
Tony, it was reading the fallible word of man that slowly turned me into an atheist. Just for your information I didn't stop at the bible, I also read all six torah, and four quran. I have also studied twenty four others religions, including Wicca, Witchcraft, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Chineism, Egyptian, Roman and Greek Mythology, Shintoism, and quite a few others.
Why would I "obey" your version of a god when I have a plethora to choose from? Because if anything is a choice its religion.
@darkwolfx333 MY sheep know my voice- simply put you are not of the sheep- I guess youre a swine-goat or dog as Jesus put it. eat drink and be merry for tommorow you die and split hell wide open.
@tonykeywest08 As for your oil spill assertion, if you know anything about whats going on, you would know the oil rig explosion was the result of BP drilling to fast on a system that could not handle it. It has been found my a team of NASA researchers and physicist that this was the cause of the Oil Rig explosion. It was a result of human error, not a work of god. Sadly you like your fellow Christians claim ignorance as knowledge. The only thing you really claim is your own shortcomings.
@darkwolfx333 You really should read the Bible God is in control of EVERY little detail for knew and preordained every hair that would fall from you head- before the foundations, get off the throne stupid
@darkwolfx333 God is not limited in the ways he can bring about his purpose- God put it into their minds to try and speed up the drilling- to ignore the danger signs and the leaking gas to explode. if you read the Bible you would know this.Kings 22:22
And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. read the context
@darkwolfx333 if man is in control why did it happen, why did the efforts fail to stop the leak- face it you puny humans are not in control. just sit back and watch your destruction unfold before your eyes. more and worse is on the way. God hates you
You know he is full of hate, he is like the gay guys I know of that are republicans that surround themselves around this stuff to make themselves look more important.
With the current ideology of the party that
they belong to and the people that represent them today. It's sad that he's
You cannot excuse the criminal acts of the so-called protesters, Lawdude. For you to defend them while stating you studied law is a shame to your professors. I am not indoctrinated. I am a Christian and a Consitutionalist. God gave me my rights and THOUSANDS died to protect them. They laid out the guts & foundation of the RULE OF LAW in the US to protect my God given rights. I would have sued the "guards", the school & the criminals. Your arguments are destroying our nation & freedom!
You fail on a fundamental point: there were no criminal acts. The "protestors" were invited to a mic and were freely and without restraint responded to by the speaker. THIS IS NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. If you would like for it to be, then you need to petition to have the constitution amended. But, under the facts in this video, there is no violation of any law. If you have additional facts, i will listen.
@lawdude10 If they do not want to hear the speaker they have the right not to attend. They do not have a right to disrupt the speakers because when they say is offensive because it hurts their feelings.Who cares about their feelings? Truth will always be offensive. That why we have corruption. Truth is true whether it hurts your feelings or not. Truth is not based on emotionality. Truth is based on facts. Political correctness is lies.
Wait one minute, lawdude. I don't know what seminary you attended. But you are wrong. JESUS IS INTOLERANT OF SIN! And he expects us to do the same. God HATES sinners and HATES sin. He is angry at them. He has shown His love but He is NOT in a love relationship with sinners. That is absolute hogwash.
Jesus violently threw sinners out of His temple. He never said to accept sin, condone it or tolerate it. He publicly rebuked sin ALL His ministry. You are misrepresenting my God, friend.
Yes, because that is how Jesus responded in the gospels. Keep your info straight; he threw money changers out of the temple, but not every possible "sinner" there to offer a sacrifice. And don't misconstrue what I wrote. He did not say "do whatever", but he did not EVER show hatred of sinners. If this is true, then he hates everyone (under your definition of "sinner"). Including you. Passages where the undesirables--sinners, whores, drunkards--are accepted must CLEARLY have been added later on.
Lawdude, watch my video on this faux protest. I put it in perspective by showing what would have happened if such were allowed to pre-empt and violate the rights of others in the past. It's about a minute or less. But, it is a valid comparison.
I have no problem with race. I do hate the media relentlessly encouraging miscegination. White girls always with black men? Really? All white girls are racists?
Taxpayers have legitimate anger and should be listened to. Sodomote special interest groups have illegitimate anger. Teapartiers had something to say that was constructive. Sodomites chant sexually debased slogans.
I do not agree with public sexuality at all. It leads to sexual anarchy. We must apply an absolute and total ban on public sexuality as we do with public sex. We must also abolish marriage for all as equality.
Anger is legitimate if you have a differing opinion. BUT, violating the constitution and denying someone their God-given, constitutionally protected rights to shout your opinion IS CRIMINAL and UNJUSTIFIABLE in America. Might work for China. But WE are NOT a Communist country yet.
You had a right to exercise you right to protest as soon as the speaker was scheduled to speak. Once he entered the room to speak to your right to protest expired.
Disturbing the peace is a crime. This was an angry mob. You cannot try to stop our democratic process by infringing on the constitutionally protected rights of others. If you disagree don't go.
A mob is simply a union of people with a single goal. Mobs need not be violent. Teapartiers were not violent yet Pelosi and ilk described them as an angry mob. That was politics though. This was educational.
Heckling, booing, catcalling, hissing, whistling, etc are great traditions of free people responding to jerks spouting off in public. From the Athenian agora to the Roman forum to Smith College, free people get to talk back to loudmouths who dare to harangue them. There is no obligation for people to suffer fools in silence.
Ryan Sorba is using the old classic trick of red herring. By extension, if there's no "gay gene", and no one's "born" gay, then 'logically', in his mind, you can only CHOOSE to be gay. But that's nonsense! No credible scientist thinks it's merely that someone is "born" gay.
It's a COMBINATION of factors. Sorba is twisting the issue for his own political purposes.
the real question is was this guy born a duche or is that a hoax?
who would choose to be gay and deal with all the scorn and hate ? the way i see it i can never be turned on by another man. and if a man fells like he can never be turned on by a woman what should he do live a lie? wouldn't that be an even bigger sin? to live your entire life lying.
try another argument so i can shoot that down as well.
So limits on behavior are being erased completely by sexual perverts. All these idiots care about is fucking. They are mentally ill with no future. They don't care about Hitler as long as they can fuck gay.
More proof that dykes do not deserve to life. If they ever interrupt my speech I would shoot them dead. Dykes deserve to be in our crosshairs. They deserve to die. That's the only way to shut them up for good.
You proactive more fascist riot police who love doing their fucking job and not just standing there. They must be conservative Republicans. There should be a political litmus test.
Cheering homosexuality? I would not laugh. I would use a whistle and say shut the hell up. I would intimidate them into shutting up.
They should not allow dykes to disrobe and engage in public sex. The riot police need to be aggressive and point there guns at protesters and order them to shut up if they don't they will be taken into custody. Backup is called. The riot police still have their weapons trained on them as backup arrives. Riot police can also take them into a room and lock the door guarding it until assistance arrives.
Wait, me thinks thou dost protest too much (and protest with horrid grammar, might I add). Are you trying to cover up your own * gasp * struggles? Why are you so against others engaging in loving relationships? How do they harm you? Let's talk substance here; how are you harmed by a person loving someone with a similar chromosomal structure? Why are you so afraid of people supporting love?
@lawdude10 Don't you have clients to represent and people to sue? Why save your nastiness for me?
I am against those who are deluded. Public sex is a crime Mr. Lawyer, so why isn't public sexuality too? We don't want to hear about it. Public indecency. It pollutes my eyes and ears. Sex is for private space only, never public space. Out is just forcing their public sexuality on us. Do you want to go to the mall and be offended by an ad for lesbians?
Oh, I only save nastiness for the ignorant. If your views are different, that is fine. I may disagree with you, but I will respect a well thought out point of view. I reserve nastiness for those who fail to think through their positions and resort to idiocy.
And public sexuality? The fact that sex and sexuality sound similar does not equate the two concepts. If you really take your position seriously, so much as wearing a wedding ring is "public sexuality." A movie poster for an upcoming romance is "public sexuality." Holding hands is "public sexuality." Seriously, do you think before you type?
Stating your love for someone and indecent exposure are so different that only a buffoon would equate the two.
So is this you admitting that you don't know what the first amendment says or that you don't care? The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech without government intervention. Private actors have every right to respond to what another private actor has to say. They even have every right to drown out bigots like Sorba. Thus, the police need not ensure your voice is heard or agreed with.
Also, let me exercise my right to free speech. You are an ignorant, close-minded, homophobic, anti-American, freedom hating bigot. You probably did not pass the third grade (based on your grammar). Your non-sensical posts add nothing to this community. Moreover, your inept and illogical positions actually cause those to hear them to become a little dumber. Just exercising my right to free speech. Feel free to respond.
@lawdude10 I don't hate freedom. I hate anybody inciting others to riot. A riot is not a peaceful protest it is a violent one. This was violent protest. I don't care about collectivism or "adding to the community". Those are subjective not objective standards. Furthermore that would chill speech to only politically correct speech. The Constitution does not limit Free Speech to politically correct speech. Hate speech laws violate the First Amendment.
Further, I agree. Speech need not be what the community agrees with. But the essence of free speech is that it invites more speech. Even an angry retort. A protest/counter-protest is the very ideal which the First Amendment upholds. No, there is no limit to politically correct speech in the First Amendment. Limits on decorum are enforced purely by the company you keep every day.
@lawdude10 Incite to riot including yelling fire a theater as well as disturbing the peace which are disruptive but not violent. This would be disturbing the peace which violate the First Amendment. We cannot use Free Speech in a mob like mentality to intimidate because authorities will be called in to mitigate violence and enforce the First Amendment. The guards stood by and did nothing to control the crowd. They failed their jobs. Aren't the guards negligent?
@lawdude10 If it's a private college, then usually a state law applies. It would be in the criminal code along disturbing the peace. This is why a person who disrupts a meeting can be arrested. It's important for maintaining order and civility.
Congratulations. You may have figured out what law applies. So you are a paralegal hoping to go to law school? Disturbing the peace applies in public contexts, and usually involves something a little more than disagreeing with a speaker. Have you ever actually tried to read a statute? Or a published case? They disagreed with the speaker, sure. But what did they do out of line? Point out to me exactly where they crossed the line from responding to a speaker and committing a hate crime?
@lawdude10 Not a hate crime. Obviously there was a mob. The mob wanted to intimidate the speaker with unpredictable behavior. The mob tries to silence his Free Speech which the campus agrees happened. They also use obscene language when doing this. So I think there would be an obscenity type charge as well.
@lawdude10 No they don't inciting a riot is not protected by the First Amendment. They were violent too. They have no First Amendment right to shout down speakers. He was invited. If they objected they should have told him before and canceled. Their behavior was criminal, unconstitutional, and unacceptable.
Inciting to riot? Where did anyone in the crowd tells others to go commit acts of violence? Which statute did they break? Let's go broader, which general principle of criminal law did they violate? Unacceptable? That might depend on facts not present in this video. Criminal? I haven't seen anything criminal. Unconstitutional? Where did the state keep them from speaking? Which officer of the state said, "you may not present your point of view"?
@lawdude10 Inciting to riot also includes disturbing the peace. There was a group, they were trying to intimidate the speaker, etc . . . I feared violence watching it. I imagine the speaker did too. Violence did not occur but he had to be escorted out because of a threat of violence. Disturbing the peace is crime is it not?
Where exactly are you finding this inciting to violence? Give me a time reference. I see them responding to the speaker. I see that the crowd doesn't agree with the speaker. I see that the crowd respectfully allowed him to answer questions from the crowd. If someone legitimately actually threatened violence (ie, "I will hurt you" or something similar), then that person has committed a crime. If someone says "let's get him," that is also a crime. To say "I disagree" is simply American.
@lawdude10 Isn't this situation similar to an angry mob who while not violent shouts over the speaker or creates noise so loud that the speaker cannot be heard? Isn't there some expectation of violence? I mean angry mobs. I know in another video they like swarmed him. Many times at these they fool with the microphone too. Isn't that going over a line too? People don't usually act so mob like. What about those at the meeting who feared violence? Why did the guards do nothing?
I only have two responses to that ignorance, and the first one is that everyone in there has the first amendment and they can say whatever they want. Secondly, a mob is physically destructive and they broke nothing and didn't hurt him. They used their free speech and suppressed violence to voice the message and common knowledge that Sorba's 'facts' are challengable and subjective.
Expectation of violence? Based on your defense of Sorba, I will presume that you are conservative. Should I expect violence when those who don't like Obama begin to protest? The law does not protect unreasonable subjective fears. Decorum, perhaps, begs that we listen to those with well thought out views. But name to me a case or statute which requires decorum.
Moreover, what is a mob to one might be a legit protest to another. The First Amendment at work.
Legit protests do not enter a small room and take it captive, sir. They assemble, as we do, outside the door and protest to all entering and exiting. ONLY in an outside venue is proximal protest protected speech. Interfering with a planned event, even one open to the public is at least disturbing the peace. I would love to try this with you in court. Would be a great case.
Your analysis depends on facts that we do not have based on this video alone. If this is a private event not open to the public (such as an event in your living room), then protestors have no right to be there. In that event, there is no right to be present, and an invasion by outsiders is certainly unwarranted. But where, as appears to be the case from the limited facts we have, this is an open mic at a public event, we do not have facts to support a finding of anything untoward.
You are attempting to apply law directed toward different circumstances. There is no indication that this was a group of protestors who had no right to be here. This appears to be an open mic with individuals who responded to an invitation to hear and speak with Sorba; they just disagree with his positions. Where is mobbing crowd? Where are the chants which prevent him from responding? Perhaps that happened in some video I have not bothered to look up, but that is not present here.
@lawdude10 Don't those guards have a duty to protect them from violence? Yet they stood there doing nothing. They did not tell the mob to quiet down at all. They were complicit with the mob. Aren't they negligent?
I have no idea what duty the private guards may have. If they are a representative of the state--police officers, etc--then they have a duty to stop violence, but they also have a duty to not interfere with the free speech rights of EVERYONE involved. The guards aren't there to ensure everyone listens to the speaker, they are there to ensure that nobody starts causing physical harm. Until actual physical harm becomes imminent, they have no right to intervene. Try reading the constitution.
Exactly, law dude. ALL security officers like law enforcement officers take the Oath of Office to uphold, enforce and protect the Consitution of the US and the state inwhich they work. They commited a criminal act when they violated the rights of Sorba and failed to enforce the state and federal law protecting freedom of speech, harassment, assault and disturbing the peace. The "protesters" broke several laws and committed a high crime.
Not all guards are representatives of the state, including private security guards. But where you are a representative of the state, you cannot yourself revoke someone's free speech. I know of no case--even from the most conservative of courts--which finds that there is an affirmative duty to ensure that a speaker is heard. Thus, there was no failure to enforce a constitutional right to free speech. Harassment laws are locality specific, but I don't see anything here that is harassing.
Lawdude, in our state ALL Security "guards" are LEOs. I do not know about the state in question. ALL of us LEOs in my state have taken the oath. Anyone who violates the US Constitution is a traitor and a criminal. In watching the video, people disturbed the peace. Then, the guards would not allow him to speak and removed HIM as the offending party. That is a violation of his free speech. There IS and obligation to uphold the law and attempt to allow free speach (removing the "protesters").
When you refuse to deal with the offending parties and further victimize the speaker, you are in violation of the law's constitution. You are not required to prevent crimes. BUT, you are responsible to stop a crime in progress. I was an LEO for a while. I know what my duties were and the instruction given us as LEOs. Legally, harassment didn't apply as that is a matter similar to stalking law. Forgive me, I am not an attorney. But, if you get in my face yelling, assault comes into question!
The same for assault (imminent fear of physical harm is required rather than speculative and unreasonable fear). Speech is speech, and both the protester and the speaker has the right to speech. Nobody came after anyone with a knife, nobody made an aggressive movement to attack someone. The crowd merely exercised their own free speech in reaction to Sorba's free speech. That is the First Amendment at its finest.
No, a protestor does NOT have the right to interfere in the freedom of speech of another. The invited guest had a guarantee of being heard, lawdude. The "protestors" broke the law. They had no guarantee of freedom of speech since this was a programmed event with an invited speaker. Freedom of speech is protected in OPEN FORUM, on the street, in a crowd gathering ephemerally. It is not the right of a group to stop a speech in progress at an event. The event has rights not the uninvited.
Do you know nothing of the First Amendment? The First Amendment is a guarantee against invasion of the right to free speech BY THE GOVERNMENT. If you cannot understand this, I cannot help you. There is no guarantee in the First Amendment to be heard. None. Think through the implications of such a policy.
Further, no case or court or statute or legal expert has EVER suggested that an event has a right. You have the right to speak in public fora, but your hearers have the right to respond.
YES and WE THE PEOPLE ARE the GOVERNMENT! We CANNOT interfere with the liberties of another. You have total freedom to do what you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same, Lawdude. The First Ammendment give special protection to religious and political speech. It DOES NOT grant YOU the right to use your freedom of speech to PREVENT the free speech of another. Quit arguing and watch my video. It slam dunks your argument. Do you work for the ACLU? LOL
ACLU? Would be honored. And give me a link to your video and I will consider it. And while you may wish for a certain interpretation of free speech, that doesn't change the fact that the only understanding of free speech that will stand up in a court of law (any in the nation) completely disagrees with yours. Why? Because they have bothered to read the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
Where does that say that private actors are bound? Expansions under case law are only variations on the same theme; and limitations on speech are positions where the court has found that the communication at issue does not constitute "speech." Like "fire" in a theater, or child pornography. These are not speech.
This has been flagged as spam show
for being a "straight man" he seems to constantly think about gay sex and everything thats gay. gay gay gay gay gay.
Killerjosh89 6 months ago
Comment removed
Killerjosh89 6 months ago
Ryan Sorba is hated because he asks the question that is still awaiting a response: "where is the evidence that homosexuality is (i) innate and (ii) healthy?"
vorzeichen89 8 months ago
@vorzeichen89: The evidence homosexuality is innate has been coming in for 50 yrs. Of the nearly 1,600 species studied so far, all have have some form of homosexuality in them.. For the past 20 years, human brain scans have shown the differences between gay and straight brains (Google gay brains are different) and in recent years, the differences are visible in the brains of fetuses. Thus, science has shown that some humans, like some of every animal species, are born gay.
writerJerome 3 months ago
if only the sound quality didnt complete suck.
warpod3388 8 months ago
Why are you assholes judging Ryan Sorba such pricks... and little ones at that.
I respect him; he is a brave man. He explains himself well and all you intolerant unsophisticated hicks knuckle draggers can be as hypocritical as you want.
Zresponder 9 months ago
Ryan Sorba spends more time thinking about gay sex than any straight man on the planet. You don't suppose he's fascinated by it because he secretly wants it? No, that never happens.
writerJerome 10 months ago 10
@writerJerome Yes, I also find this to be the case. He's obsessed with sex - particularly the anal kind. Funny how the obsessions we see in others is so often our own obsessions projected onto normal people whom we despise for being normal.
akrifasouth 3 months ago
Ryan, you are one sad pathetic human being. Do you have gay friends or family? I highly doubt it. And don't say you do, because I'm tired of these so-called "Christians" who say they "love their gay friends & family" but continually speak out against Equality and demean us when there are PLENTY of heterosexuals out there who just as, if not more promiscuous, then any gay person you may meet. (but i guess you're not speaking out against those straight people & their actions, are you?)
JRNY07 10 months ago
is this a "spoof" of something? not really understanding why anyone would sit thru this.
cjm608 10 months ago
He is NOT an asshole; assholes have a function.
griffgregory 10 months ago 5
Comment removed
schwarzblatt 1 year ago
Is this guy for real? Or is he just playing a bigot to show how horrible they are.
whyuahater3 1 year ago
This video is edited and chopped up in order for things to be take out of context of what Ryan Sorba says. This is a porr attemtp to discredit him
funk7000 1 year ago
@funk7000 - Laughing - Huh? Really? He's an asshol&
whyuahater3 1 year ago
@whyuahater3 When somebody resorts to name calling is a clear indication that they already lost the argument before it even started.
funk7000 1 year ago
@funk7000 (Laughing) True to a point, but when I called him an ass*ole, it's because he is one. He's a bigot, and that is so sad. I feel sorry him, and I will pray for him. And to top it off, I will pray for you too! God Bless and may you love everyone - just just straight people.
whyuahater3 1 year ago
Paging doctor Freud!
TheTroll342 1 year ago
One gay guy saying he chose it does not = homosexuality being a choice for everyone. I don't care if I was the only gay guy who claimed to not have chosen it. I know what I feel thank you very god damn much.
fuzzylogic11 1 year ago
There are people that can not live without something to hate. In his world gays are a major problem. He sees this as fight he can win. When you can't change people or make them think like you, your next step is to want them to suffer. This is why he wants power and attention.
LBB2156 1 year ago
Lesbians, one and all. I would like to give you a little ammo against this guy. You really want to piss him off? Next time he speaks, you gather and chant this. "His name is Ryan Paulson!" TRUST ME... You will piss him off. Why? Because this was his name before he changed it. San Bernardino is ashamed of you Ryan Paulson! Changing your name because you hate your Dad? HONOR YOUR MOTHER, AND FATHER! That's a quote from your own good book. But you only listen to the rules you like.
dan7nad7dan 1 year ago
LOL, these videos are hilarious. There's so many of Ryan making a fool of himself. The only reason they let him speak at all is so there's something to laugh at, lol. Watching him stumble, sweat and dodge questions that obviously prove he's wrong, is hilarious. Please post more, they're very entertaining!
LibertyObserver 1 year ago
most hated man around! i wonder what he gets out of this from a personal perspective. he is just despised by people. nobody likes him and I think in addition to the message, it is the messenger personality that is disturbing.
firstclassreno 1 year ago
Why was this man, who is so obviously less-than-intelligent without any academic credentials, invited to speak at a university??
salmonroses 1 year ago
the best part was when the health teacher let him have it. :)
coolkitty7 1 year ago
Then why do we say that the conversation devolved into violence? The debate has not evolved? In our language we do assign moral components to evolution. Can you see how language already defines devolution.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Language. Why do Atheists say "goddammit"? Because our language asserts meaning to those phrases. "I'll believe it when pigs fly" doesn't actually mean that we'd believe something if pigs evolve wings and fly, it means it's ridiculous to believe. From a scientific point of view, devolution doesn't exist. In a language point of view, it does. However those two are very different.
CliffM85 1 year ago
So if you were present the moment that humans devolved into apes as Darwin's theory holds you would still consider that evolution? Evolution has no moral comoonent? If devolution can be evolution then everything is evolution and evolution becomes a meaningless distinction. How can there by no opposite to evolution?
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Yes, if humans evolved into apes it would still be evolution. Science in general has no moral component, it's just a collection of facts and laws.
Why must there be an opposite to everything? How can there be no opposite of 'snow'?
CliffM85 1 year ago
Evolution cannot work in reverse? What if you had a time machine? Would you not see nan turn into chimp? Devolution.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Time machines don't exist, which would be the only way to see evolution work in reverse. Not to mention that watching something work in reverse would not make it "devolution", it would just be watching Evolution in reverse since logically the changes were being done in forward time movement.
CliffM85 1 year ago
Genetic losers are the disabled, homosexuals, the aged, the terminally infirmed, the fat, the druggies, etc . . . Any person who has cellular degeneration. This is not evolution but sometimes willful devolution. A man who does not produce anything and wastes his existance.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne The disabled, homosexuals, aged, fat, and druggies aren't genetic losers at all. The disabled are mainly disabled due to genetic mutations, which isn't a losing quality whatsoever but a less beneficial one. Homosexuals, again, are genetic mutations that one could argue is a beneficial way to limit population growth that results in overpopulation. Fat is not bad neither, as we are biologically inclined to eat. Druggies aren't mutated but are addicted, different thing entirely.
CliffM85 1 year ago
The fish experienced cellular damage as they do qith oil in the Gulf or toxic waste. Loss of sight is not evolution. Loss of anything from disability to mutations and birth defects are devolution. Natural selection weeds them out. What about women who choose genetic losers as mates?
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne No, that would be evolution as well. Natural selection is a process in Evolution, but sometimes losses are quite beneficial when an appendage is no longer needed. You keep repeating that any loss is in this mythological "de" mode, which simply isn't so. Loss of gills is beneficial to land mammals simply because it allows for a better respiratory system.
Humans don't mate for better genomes primarily, so it's an invalid question for 'natural selection'. Define 'genetic losers'.
CliffM85 1 year ago
Isn't being handicapped as the result of an accident causing cellular degeneration hence devolution? If cells die is it not devolution? Aren't druggies devolved then?
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Nothing devolves. Accidents aren't attributed to evolution, with evolution nothing happens by chance or accident.
CliffM85 1 year ago
If beings evolve what is stop them from devolving or reverting to an earlier genetic state? It can't just be one way in one direction. Equal and opposite forces act on beings.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
If you went back in time it would be devolution. If there is evolution there must be devolution. Equal and opposite forces. Evolution in reverse. Devolution can result from toxic waste or could result in birth defects. Evolution is positive change. Devolution is negative change.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Wrong. There are no negative changes, just less beneficial ones. The changes that are most beneficial progress and survive. Those that don't change or have less beneficial changes die out due to competition. Losing an appendage could be either a great beneficial adapatation or just a minor beneficial adaptation. For instance, fish losing eyes due to living in the dark is beneficial since the organ is unnecessary. They didn't devolve a loss of eyes, they evolved a loss of eyes.
CliffM85 1 year ago
Humans cannot devolve?
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Absolutely not. Devolution doesn't exist in any form. Things evolve, they change. They gain beneficial appendages or lose unbeneficial appendages. Losing something doesn't make it "De" at all. It just means the species is more adapted without unnecessary attributes.
CliffM85 1 year ago
If evolution exists so does devolution. Organism revert back to their previous state. They become simplier not complex. Equal and opposite force.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne That would still be evolution since it would be a change for the beneficial of an organism.
CliffM85 1 year ago
Species can devolve too. Not just genetic mutations but also creatures who cannot breed and carry life to a new generation. These genetic failures have devolved.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne There's no such thing as devolution. One only evolves. *rolls eyes* It's survival of the fittest, sometimes getting rid of an organ is beneficial.
CliffM85 1 year ago
Unevolved creatures cannot reproduce because natural selection weeds them out.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Every creature evolved and is currently evolving so your statement makes no sense, especially since we're talking about species. No species is exclusively homosexual, so to suggest a homosexual species would die out is just inane at best.
CliffM85 1 year ago
I support evolution. I said I was a Darwinist. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce they are unevolved. Homosexuality is a deathstyle which will extinct the human race.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne You don't really understand evolution whatsoever, do you? Homosexuality is beneficial to society as it limits the population. It also is useful in other organisms to halt violence. Most organisms would prefer orgasm to death. You also equating a sexual orientation as 'unevolved' greatly shows that you know nothing on the subject of evolution.
And there is no God, by the way.
CliffM85 1 year ago
@CliffM85 there is a god and all the beneifits of homosexauilty are destoryed by all the std's like aids. and homosexauilty is a choice and they are politcally trying to force thier lifestyle on everyone. i dont hate gays i just dont agree with thier lifestyle and choice
WiseKitsune 1 year ago
@WiseKitsune No, actually there isn't a god. All the evidence points at the Christian Bible and Muslim Quran being scientifically, historically, and morally flawed enough to debunk the major stories in the texts. Homosexuality isn't a choice, however. If it were than the suicide rate of homosexual teenagers would be staggeringly low rather than depressingly high. They also don't try to force others to be homosexual, that'd be called rape. If you hate their lifestyle, you hate them. Period.
CliffM85 1 year ago
@CliffM85 homosexuality is beneficial to society??? you sir are an idiot or a faggot!!
Boromir26 1 year ago
@Boromir26 If all you can do is name call and not produce intelligent arguments then I can safely assure you that I'm not afraid of your arguments. How about this....ask me how it benefits society. Then I'll tell you and you can debate me. Unless you want to reduce your argument to fifth grade "Yo momma" jokes. *rolls eyes*
CliffM85 1 year ago
Darwin was a racist who inspired marget Sanger aborting blacks and the Nazi's master race. There is a racist connection to evolution. I am an atheist. Do I quote any religious text? No I laugh at such moral supstitions.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Facinating can you supply us with links on here to back up your misunderstanding of evolution. Because what I find funny is that people who demonize Darwin, and demonize evolution and know nothing about it seem to happily misuse it against minorities without any care. The christians used a incorrect idea of evolution against african american rights, back in the 40's-70's, and they try to use evolution against LGBT.
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
Survival of the fittest is science it is the law of nature. Natural selection is also science. Bad genetics are eliminated from replication.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne You forgot about mutations, transpositions, elimination, replication, deletion and duplication of genes that factor into evolution. Funny part is... I am a psychology intern not a biologist and I still know these rudimentary facts on genes and evolution.
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
sodomy is "irrational and unnatural." hmmm, so he doesn't get handjobs or blowjobs i guess? neither produce children, so i'm sure he never takes part in such evil things. also, he never masturbates i'm sure, irrational and unnatural.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
people who constantly rail against gays seem to me...very gay
BillKiernan 1 year ago 2
@BillKiernan it really depends. Sometimes they are just people who cant get laid. Sorba must really be compensating for something because that limp dick sure has an ax to grind.
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 i mean, gay sex weirds me out too, but it has 0 effect on my life. if it weirds me out, my solution is, don't have gay sex. problem solved.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
We so have a right to disrupt democratic processses. These are wacko liberals. They violated this man's Free Speech rights. We don't have a right to disrupt. Just as Code Pink has no right to disrupt Karl Rove's book signings. Surprise they actually arrest violators.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Sugar, he was in consensus, you know what happens after the speech was done. The students patiently waited for him to finish to called this bigoted out one letter at a time.
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
I have no right to incite a riot or yell fire in a crowded theater. I have a right not to attend if attending would offend me. I have no right to shout down a speaker and infringe on his First Amendment rights. Karl Rove has recently said he requires armed guards at book signings now because of Code Pink.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne: Because this is a violent mob? Give me a timestamp for where they were violent. At what moment in this video to they step over the bounds of decency, much less the law? From everything we can see in this video, this was an open mic event wherein not everyone who spoke agreed completely with the speaker. As I understand it, this is the First Amendment at its best.
lawdude10 1 year ago
what a bimbo 'sexuality is not understood, yikes wtf
tonykeywest07 1 year ago
I love how he just wonderfully skates around questions and the facts about homosexuality and the audience calls him out for it.
All i can say towards Ryan Sorba at the end of the last question asked in this video is EPIC FAIL in 3...2...1...
darkwolfx333 1 year ago 2
@46 I CALL GODWINS LAW
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
Why are we at the mercy of these sexual anarchists? They seek do destroy our langauage and all meaning.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne There is a guy who stands outside my local starbucks, shouting his ideas about life from the street corner. And you know what? He has that right. If I wanted to respond, that is my right. Now, there is a difference in that this is a different setting; but you have yet to point to ANYTHING that makes this inappropriate. All you've done is vehemently state that you hate all homosexuals. Ok, we get that. But what does this have to do with how this rather polite crowd acted?
lawdude10 1 year ago
Animals don't exist in civilized society we do. A civilized society. No violent riots.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
So because there is proof a pair of horses may have been homos, that's an argument for homosexuality? We're supposed to take examples from animals?? Dogs like to roll around feces and mark their territory? Are you going to follow their example?
jamezbond78 2 years ago
@jamezbond78 amimals do not become homosexual.
tonykeywest08 1 year ago
A girl @ 4:45 says that sexuality is still misunderstood?! You mean to tell me that after thousands of years of human reproduction, we still don't know how it's done? Unbeleivable.
jamezbond78 2 years ago
@jamezbond78 Yeah not to mention the work of Dr. John Gottmann, Judith Stacey and tens of thousands of doctors and scientist around the world that understand sexuality and sexual orientation knowing that "it is not fluid," but that "it IS fixed, and something a person does not choose and cannot be changed"
Epic fail from Green sleeveless-shirt girl
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
An angry mob gives a person a reasonable expectation of violence. Angry mobs need to be restrained not allowed to destroy the social order of society. We would be at the mercy of criminal anarchists then.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne well jeez hun with your sort of faulty logic, if that were the case then I guess native americans were wrong to fight their oppresses off, African americans should still be slaves and segregated, and women should not have the right to vote. I wonder what you must think of the second amendment...
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 Self preservation is acceptable to a Darwinist. I think it was incorrect to treat them differently afterwards. It is not fair that they are exempt for taxes and eminent domain. Blacks are still slaves to racism. Women are slaves to sexism and their pruient sexual desires. The second amendment is a well regulated militia. We regulate guns. Guns are the people's liberty teeth.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Darwinist? Funny because i am a scientist, who works in the psychological fields, not a "darwinist." Although your usage of the term makes clear you dont understand what evolution is. That is ok though, not everyone in america can will themselves to understand elementary science, we can forgive you on that. It is sad how religious people, not scientist, used evolution, which they dont wish to understand, to uphold bigotry against african americans; now they use it on LGBT.
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
Lawsude10 if they disagree with the speaker they have no right to attend to cause trouble. That is terrorism. We are to tolerate terrorism now. America is not a violent fascist State. Shouting down a speaker is a violent act that goes beyond protesting as it attacks his constitutional right.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne So then its perfectly ok to scream "BOMB" in a crowded place, despite the consequences of people getting hurt if not killed? When people like Sorba tell blatant lies, twist scientific data, and then fabricate opinions to condone the dehumanization and bigotry against a disenfranchised minority there is a line that is crossed and such a bigot must be called out. If he can speak his hate, he can be called out for it. Welcome to America, if you dont like it then LEAVE!
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 God Hates Fags
tonykeywest07 1 year ago
@tonykeywest07 Sweetheart in order to prove your statement you first have to prove the existence of god, because you cannot do so your outburst is funny but false. And lets just say religions are real (which they are not), which god hates gay people? Because out of the 200 religions on this planet the only ones with rewritten hypocritical bullshit that expressively condemning gay people are the three abrahamic faiths. So that is 197 to 3. You lose bitch.
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 if there is a Bomb stupid then there is no lie now is there faggot. fags are an abomination and God destroyed sodom and gommorah because he hates fags. and if your fga ass dosnt believe it it is not binding on anyone. You will believe when you wake up in your just dessert- the lake of fire
tonykeywest08 1 year ago
@tonykeywest08 LOL you know i read a very failish fiction book the other day. It was very flat, one dimensional, and quite boring. It contradicted itself more than 600 times. It was the holy bible. Say what bitch?
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 liar you never read it,
tonykeywest08 1 year ago
@tonykeywest08 Oh i have read all 13 versions. From the ESV to the KJV. A few revisions here and there between the 13, shows how fallible the "word of man" is. In the end I find it funny that all the works of science in the last 150 years cannot (in your mind) equal the wisdom of cattle sacrificing primitives who believed every animal species was within walking distance of Noah's house. Oh btw I hope you dont like lobster *winks*
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 sure you have if you d read it youd know more about the the works of God than the works of puny man so stop blabbering gibberish and OBEY - your full and final destruction is imminent. how do you like one of the latest works of God , the OIL spill looming in the gulf. DO not obey and be cursed your curses are coming
tonykeywest08 1 year ago
Tony, it was reading the fallible word of man that slowly turned me into an atheist. Just for your information I didn't stop at the bible, I also read all six torah, and four quran. I have also studied twenty four others religions, including Wicca, Witchcraft, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Chineism, Egyptian, Roman and Greek Mythology, Shintoism, and quite a few others.
Why would I "obey" your version of a god when I have a plethora to choose from? Because if anything is a choice its religion.
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 MY sheep know my voice- simply put you are not of the sheep- I guess youre a swine-goat or dog as Jesus put it. eat drink and be merry for tommorow you die and split hell wide open.
tonykeywest08 1 year ago
@tonykeywest08 As for your oil spill assertion, if you know anything about whats going on, you would know the oil rig explosion was the result of BP drilling to fast on a system that could not handle it. It has been found my a team of NASA researchers and physicist that this was the cause of the Oil Rig explosion. It was a result of human error, not a work of god. Sadly you like your fellow Christians claim ignorance as knowledge. The only thing you really claim is your own shortcomings.
darkwolfx333 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 You really should read the Bible God is in control of EVERY little detail for knew and preordained every hair that would fall from you head- before the foundations, get off the throne stupid
tonykeywest08 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 God is not limited in the ways he can bring about his purpose- God put it into their minds to try and speed up the drilling- to ignore the danger signs and the leaking gas to explode. if you read the Bible you would know this.Kings 22:22
And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. read the context
tonykeywest08 1 year ago
@darkwolfx333 if man is in control why did it happen, why did the efforts fail to stop the leak- face it you puny humans are not in control. just sit back and watch your destruction unfold before your eyes. more and worse is on the way. God hates you
tonykeywest08 1 year ago
You know he is full of hate, he is like the gay guys I know of that are republicans that surround themselves around this stuff to make themselves look more important.
With the current ideology of the party that
they belong to and the people that represent them today. It's sad that he's
a bigot, but he doesn't even realize that
yet?!
uwcollegeboi222000 2 years ago
You cannot excuse the criminal acts of the so-called protesters, Lawdude. For you to defend them while stating you studied law is a shame to your professors. I am not indoctrinated. I am a Christian and a Consitutionalist. God gave me my rights and THOUSANDS died to protect them. They laid out the guts & foundation of the RULE OF LAW in the US to protect my God given rights. I would have sued the "guards", the school & the criminals. Your arguments are destroying our nation & freedom!
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
You fail on a fundamental point: there were no criminal acts. The "protestors" were invited to a mic and were freely and without restraint responded to by the speaker. THIS IS NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. If you would like for it to be, then you need to petition to have the constitution amended. But, under the facts in this video, there is no violation of any law. If you have additional facts, i will listen.
lawdude10 2 years ago
@lawdude10 If they do not want to hear the speaker they have the right not to attend. They do not have a right to disrupt the speakers because when they say is offensive because it hurts their feelings.Who cares about their feelings? Truth will always be offensive. That why we have corruption. Truth is true whether it hurts your feelings or not. Truth is not based on emotionality. Truth is based on facts. Political correctness is lies.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
And, speaking as a son of parents who both served in our nations military, you can shut your mouth about our soldiers.
lawdude10 2 years ago
Wait one minute, lawdude. I don't know what seminary you attended. But you are wrong. JESUS IS INTOLERANT OF SIN! And he expects us to do the same. God HATES sinners and HATES sin. He is angry at them. He has shown His love but He is NOT in a love relationship with sinners. That is absolute hogwash.
Jesus violently threw sinners out of His temple. He never said to accept sin, condone it or tolerate it. He publicly rebuked sin ALL His ministry. You are misrepresenting my God, friend.
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
Yes, because that is how Jesus responded in the gospels. Keep your info straight; he threw money changers out of the temple, but not every possible "sinner" there to offer a sacrifice. And don't misconstrue what I wrote. He did not say "do whatever", but he did not EVER show hatred of sinners. If this is true, then he hates everyone (under your definition of "sinner"). Including you. Passages where the undesirables--sinners, whores, drunkards--are accepted must CLEARLY have been added later on.
lawdude10 2 years ago
Lawdude, watch my video on this faux protest. I put it in perspective by showing what would have happened if such were allowed to pre-empt and violate the rights of others in the past. It's about a minute or less. But, it is a valid comparison.
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
Law protects us in situations in which we could reasonably expect violence. It would be illegal to just let violence occur.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
I have no problem with race. I do hate the media relentlessly encouraging miscegination. White girls always with black men? Really? All white girls are racists?
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
Taxpayers have legitimate anger and should be listened to. Sodomote special interest groups have illegitimate anger. Teapartiers had something to say that was constructive. Sodomites chant sexually debased slogans.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
I do not agree with public sexuality at all. It leads to sexual anarchy. We must apply an absolute and total ban on public sexuality as we do with public sex. We must also abolish marriage for all as equality.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
The town hallers anger was legitimate. Their anger was illegitimate.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
Anger is legitimate if you have a differing opinion. BUT, violating the constitution and denying someone their God-given, constitutionally protected rights to shout your opinion IS CRIMINAL and UNJUSTIFIABLE in America. Might work for China. But WE are NOT a Communist country yet.
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
too bad the audio is screwed...........
driverain2 2 years ago
Ryan Sorba you are a douche bag.
You are every stupid stereotype MSNBC whine about.
poisonapple16 2 years ago
You had a right to exercise you right to protest as soon as the speaker was scheduled to speak. Once he entered the room to speak to your right to protest expired.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
I hope that you also held this view and said so during this summer's angry mob Town Hall thugs.
bluemahajer 2 years ago
Disturbing the peace is a crime. This was an angry mob. You cannot try to stop our democratic process by infringing on the constitutionally protected rights of others. If you disagree don't go.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
A mob is simply a union of people with a single goal. Mobs need not be violent. Teapartiers were not violent yet Pelosi and ilk described them as an angry mob. That was politics though. This was educational.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
He wasn't born a Bigot, He chose that life....
Moron
Honeypott310 2 years ago 2
Heckling, booing, catcalling, hissing, whistling, etc are great traditions of free people responding to jerks spouting off in public. From the Athenian agora to the Roman forum to Smith College, free people get to talk back to loudmouths who dare to harangue them. There is no obligation for people to suffer fools in silence.
jimtrueblue99 2 years ago
this guys a phony
jokerbookshop 2 years ago
What a childish crowd.
Sorba is great though.
Repoman23 2 years ago
Anti-sodomy laws are nothing but authoritarian relics of an era we've long passed.
whoo689 2 years ago
Ryan Sorba is using the old classic trick of red herring. By extension, if there's no "gay gene", and no one's "born" gay, then 'logically', in his mind, you can only CHOOSE to be gay. But that's nonsense! No credible scientist thinks it's merely that someone is "born" gay.
It's a COMBINATION of factors. Sorba is twisting the issue for his own political purposes.
whoo689 2 years ago
the real question is was this guy born a duche or is that a hoax?
who would choose to be gay and deal with all the scorn and hate ? the way i see it i can never be turned on by another man. and if a man fells like he can never be turned on by a woman what should he do live a lie? wouldn't that be an even bigger sin? to live your entire life lying.
try another argument so i can shoot that down as well.
cjfilmproductions 2 years ago
diddymuch-liar
about 5 to 10% of gays try to change through religious conversion and 98% of those fail
You cannto change your orientation-it is immutable like skin color, race. etc-all intelligent people know this-pelase post ONE link to prove your case
Toxicodious-get back to your xbox, loser
NormanJoey2004 2 years ago
So limits on behavior are being erased completely by sexual perverts. All these idiots care about is fucking. They are mentally ill with no future. They don't care about Hitler as long as they can fuck gay.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
More proof that dykes do not deserve to life. If they ever interrupt my speech I would shoot them dead. Dykes deserve to be in our crosshairs. They deserve to die. That's the only way to shut them up for good.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
You proactive more fascist riot police who love doing their fucking job and not just standing there. They must be conservative Republicans. There should be a political litmus test.
Cheering homosexuality? I would not laugh. I would use a whistle and say shut the hell up. I would intimidate them into shutting up.
They need discipline badly.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
They should not allow dykes to disrobe and engage in public sex. The riot police need to be aggressive and point there guns at protesters and order them to shut up if they don't they will be taken into custody. Backup is called. The riot police still have their weapons trained on them as backup arrives. Riot police can also take them into a room and lock the door guarding it until assistance arrives.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
Wait, me thinks thou dost protest too much (and protest with horrid grammar, might I add). Are you trying to cover up your own * gasp * struggles? Why are you so against others engaging in loving relationships? How do they harm you? Let's talk substance here; how are you harmed by a person loving someone with a similar chromosomal structure? Why are you so afraid of people supporting love?
lawdude10 2 years ago
@lawdude10 Don't you have clients to represent and people to sue? Why save your nastiness for me?
I am against those who are deluded. Public sex is a crime Mr. Lawyer, so why isn't public sexuality too? We don't want to hear about it. Public indecency. It pollutes my eyes and ears. Sex is for private space only, never public space. Out is just forcing their public sexuality on us. Do you want to go to the mall and be offended by an ad for lesbians?
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne
Civil rights are more important than your comfort towards them. Deal with it.
ohmss069 2 years ago
Oh, I only save nastiness for the ignorant. If your views are different, that is fine. I may disagree with you, but I will respect a well thought out point of view. I reserve nastiness for those who fail to think through their positions and resort to idiocy.
lawdude10 2 years ago
And public sexuality? The fact that sex and sexuality sound similar does not equate the two concepts. If you really take your position seriously, so much as wearing a wedding ring is "public sexuality." A movie poster for an upcoming romance is "public sexuality." Holding hands is "public sexuality." Seriously, do you think before you type?
Stating your love for someone and indecent exposure are so different that only a buffoon would equate the two.
lawdude10 2 years ago
Fifty years ago, your kind got upset just because two people whose skin pigmentation didn't match might hold hands.
lawdude10 2 years ago
There should always be riot police present with controversial speakers to enforce the First Amendment. They must arrest and tazer dissidents.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
So is this you admitting that you don't know what the first amendment says or that you don't care? The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech without government intervention. Private actors have every right to respond to what another private actor has to say. They even have every right to drown out bigots like Sorba. Thus, the police need not ensure your voice is heard or agreed with.
lawdude10 2 years ago
Also, let me exercise my right to free speech. You are an ignorant, close-minded, homophobic, anti-American, freedom hating bigot. You probably did not pass the third grade (based on your grammar). Your non-sensical posts add nothing to this community. Moreover, your inept and illogical positions actually cause those to hear them to become a little dumber. Just exercising my right to free speech. Feel free to respond.
lawdude10 2 years ago
@lawdude10 I don't hate freedom. I hate anybody inciting others to riot. A riot is not a peaceful protest it is a violent one. This was violent protest. I don't care about collectivism or "adding to the community". Those are subjective not objective standards. Furthermore that would chill speech to only politically correct speech. The Constitution does not limit Free Speech to politically correct speech. Hate speech laws violate the First Amendment.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
Inciting to riot? So yelling=riot? Uh-huh.
Further, I agree. Speech need not be what the community agrees with. But the essence of free speech is that it invites more speech. Even an angry retort. A protest/counter-protest is the very ideal which the First Amendment upholds. No, there is no limit to politically correct speech in the First Amendment. Limits on decorum are enforced purely by the company you keep every day.
lawdude10 2 years ago
@lawdude10 Incite to riot including yelling fire a theater as well as disturbing the peace which are disruptive but not violent. This would be disturbing the peace which violate the First Amendment. We cannot use Free Speech in a mob like mentality to intimidate because authorities will be called in to mitigate violence and enforce the First Amendment. The guards stood by and did nothing to control the crowd. They failed their jobs. Aren't the guards negligent?
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
@lawdude10 If it's a private college, then usually a state law applies. It would be in the criminal code along disturbing the peace. This is why a person who disrupts a meeting can be arrested. It's important for maintaining order and civility.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
Congratulations. You may have figured out what law applies. So you are a paralegal hoping to go to law school? Disturbing the peace applies in public contexts, and usually involves something a little more than disagreeing with a speaker. Have you ever actually tried to read a statute? Or a published case? They disagreed with the speaker, sure. But what did they do out of line? Point out to me exactly where they crossed the line from responding to a speaker and committing a hate crime?
lawdude10 2 years ago
@lawdude10 Not a hate crime. Obviously there was a mob. The mob wanted to intimidate the speaker with unpredictable behavior. The mob tries to silence his Free Speech which the campus agrees happened. They also use obscene language when doing this. So I think there would be an obscenity type charge as well.
I have read statutes and case law.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
@lawdude10 No they don't inciting a riot is not protected by the First Amendment. They were violent too. They have no First Amendment right to shout down speakers. He was invited. If they objected they should have told him before and canceled. Their behavior was criminal, unconstitutional, and unacceptable.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
Inciting to riot? Where did anyone in the crowd tells others to go commit acts of violence? Which statute did they break? Let's go broader, which general principle of criminal law did they violate? Unacceptable? That might depend on facts not present in this video. Criminal? I haven't seen anything criminal. Unconstitutional? Where did the state keep them from speaking? Which officer of the state said, "you may not present your point of view"?
lawdude10 2 years ago
@lawdude10 Inciting to riot also includes disturbing the peace. There was a group, they were trying to intimidate the speaker, etc . . . I feared violence watching it. I imagine the speaker did too. Violence did not occur but he had to be escorted out because of a threat of violence. Disturbing the peace is crime is it not?
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
Where exactly are you finding this inciting to violence? Give me a time reference. I see them responding to the speaker. I see that the crowd doesn't agree with the speaker. I see that the crowd respectfully allowed him to answer questions from the crowd. If someone legitimately actually threatened violence (ie, "I will hurt you" or something similar), then that person has committed a crime. If someone says "let's get him," that is also a crime. To say "I disagree" is simply American.
lawdude10 2 years ago
@lawdude10 Isn't this situation similar to an angry mob who while not violent shouts over the speaker or creates noise so loud that the speaker cannot be heard? Isn't there some expectation of violence? I mean angry mobs. I know in another video they like swarmed him. Many times at these they fool with the microphone too. Isn't that going over a line too? People don't usually act so mob like. What about those at the meeting who feared violence? Why did the guards do nothing?
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne
I only have two responses to that ignorance, and the first one is that everyone in there has the first amendment and they can say whatever they want. Secondly, a mob is physically destructive and they broke nothing and didn't hurt him. They used their free speech and suppressed violence to voice the message and common knowledge that Sorba's 'facts' are challengable and subjective.
ohmss069 2 years ago
Expectation of violence? Based on your defense of Sorba, I will presume that you are conservative. Should I expect violence when those who don't like Obama begin to protest? The law does not protect unreasonable subjective fears. Decorum, perhaps, begs that we listen to those with well thought out views. But name to me a case or statute which requires decorum.
Moreover, what is a mob to one might be a legit protest to another. The First Amendment at work.
lawdude10 2 years ago
Legit protests do not enter a small room and take it captive, sir. They assemble, as we do, outside the door and protest to all entering and exiting. ONLY in an outside venue is proximal protest protected speech. Interfering with a planned event, even one open to the public is at least disturbing the peace. I would love to try this with you in court. Would be a great case.
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
Your analysis depends on facts that we do not have based on this video alone. If this is a private event not open to the public (such as an event in your living room), then protestors have no right to be there. In that event, there is no right to be present, and an invasion by outsiders is certainly unwarranted. But where, as appears to be the case from the limited facts we have, this is an open mic at a public event, we do not have facts to support a finding of anything untoward.
lawdude10 2 years ago
You are attempting to apply law directed toward different circumstances. There is no indication that this was a group of protestors who had no right to be here. This appears to be an open mic with individuals who responded to an invitation to hear and speak with Sorba; they just disagree with his positions. Where is mobbing crowd? Where are the chants which prevent him from responding? Perhaps that happened in some video I have not bothered to look up, but that is not present here.
lawdude10 2 years ago
@lawdude10 Don't those guards have a duty to protect them from violence? Yet they stood there doing nothing. They did not tell the mob to quiet down at all. They were complicit with the mob. Aren't they negligent?
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
I have no idea what duty the private guards may have. If they are a representative of the state--police officers, etc--then they have a duty to stop violence, but they also have a duty to not interfere with the free speech rights of EVERYONE involved. The guards aren't there to ensure everyone listens to the speaker, they are there to ensure that nobody starts causing physical harm. Until actual physical harm becomes imminent, they have no right to intervene. Try reading the constitution.
lawdude10 2 years ago
Exactly, law dude. ALL security officers like law enforcement officers take the Oath of Office to uphold, enforce and protect the Consitution of the US and the state inwhich they work. They commited a criminal act when they violated the rights of Sorba and failed to enforce the state and federal law protecting freedom of speech, harassment, assault and disturbing the peace. The "protesters" broke several laws and committed a high crime.
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
Not all guards are representatives of the state, including private security guards. But where you are a representative of the state, you cannot yourself revoke someone's free speech. I know of no case--even from the most conservative of courts--which finds that there is an affirmative duty to ensure that a speaker is heard. Thus, there was no failure to enforce a constitutional right to free speech. Harassment laws are locality specific, but I don't see anything here that is harassing.
lawdude10 2 years ago
Lawdude, in our state ALL Security "guards" are LEOs. I do not know about the state in question. ALL of us LEOs in my state have taken the oath. Anyone who violates the US Constitution is a traitor and a criminal. In watching the video, people disturbed the peace. Then, the guards would not allow him to speak and removed HIM as the offending party. That is a violation of his free speech. There IS and obligation to uphold the law and attempt to allow free speach (removing the "protesters").
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
When you refuse to deal with the offending parties and further victimize the speaker, you are in violation of the law's constitution. You are not required to prevent crimes. BUT, you are responsible to stop a crime in progress. I was an LEO for a while. I know what my duties were and the instruction given us as LEOs. Legally, harassment didn't apply as that is a matter similar to stalking law. Forgive me, I am not an attorney. But, if you get in my face yelling, assault comes into question!
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
The same for assault (imminent fear of physical harm is required rather than speculative and unreasonable fear). Speech is speech, and both the protester and the speaker has the right to speech. Nobody came after anyone with a knife, nobody made an aggressive movement to attack someone. The crowd merely exercised their own free speech in reaction to Sorba's free speech. That is the First Amendment at its finest.
lawdude10 2 years ago
No, a protestor does NOT have the right to interfere in the freedom of speech of another. The invited guest had a guarantee of being heard, lawdude. The "protestors" broke the law. They had no guarantee of freedom of speech since this was a programmed event with an invited speaker. Freedom of speech is protected in OPEN FORUM, on the street, in a crowd gathering ephemerally. It is not the right of a group to stop a speech in progress at an event. The event has rights not the uninvited.
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
Do you know nothing of the First Amendment? The First Amendment is a guarantee against invasion of the right to free speech BY THE GOVERNMENT. If you cannot understand this, I cannot help you. There is no guarantee in the First Amendment to be heard. None. Think through the implications of such a policy.
Further, no case or court or statute or legal expert has EVER suggested that an event has a right. You have the right to speak in public fora, but your hearers have the right to respond.
lawdude10 2 years ago
YES and WE THE PEOPLE ARE the GOVERNMENT! We CANNOT interfere with the liberties of another. You have total freedom to do what you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same, Lawdude. The First Ammendment give special protection to religious and political speech. It DOES NOT grant YOU the right to use your freedom of speech to PREVENT the free speech of another. Quit arguing and watch my video. It slam dunks your argument. Do you work for the ACLU? LOL
ChristianVoice08 2 years ago
ACLU? Would be honored. And give me a link to your video and I will consider it. And while you may wish for a certain interpretation of free speech, that doesn't change the fact that the only understanding of free speech that will stand up in a court of law (any in the nation) completely disagrees with yours. Why? Because they have bothered to read the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
lawdude10 2 years ago
Where does that say that private actors are bound? Expansions under case law are only variations on the same theme; and limitations on speech are positions where the court has found that the communication at issue does not constitute "speech." Like "fire" in a theater, or child pornography. These are not speech.
lawdude10 2 years ago