Yes, I see that's how you read it. Too bad it's not what was written.

Pardon me... But doesn't the First Amendment only guarantee that government can’t limit free speech?

I'm going to give the short answer since I am going to try and take a little nappypoo (having been up all night unable to sleep)....



With some caveats, I do not disagree with your statement. Generally speaking, that is.

Correct, there is nothing technically illegal about shouting someone down in public forum.

That doesn't mean it's not rude, infantile, counterproductive, and in the spirit of censorship.

"Legal" is not that same as "right".

My interpretation is not in the least unreasonable, and in fact makes sense.

Clearly the sentence structure implies that free speech issues and comedic moments were a result of detractors trying to interrupt his tour.

The attempts to interrupt the tour raised the free speech issues and created the comedic moments.

I fail to see why this is not what the sentence says.

So, at some point, is anyone going to watch and discuss the movie, rather than endlessly debate the syntax of the original post?

I'm going to watch it tonight.

Agreed. But it's not denying them their right to free speach, either.

It's a good thing I only posted a blurb. ;)

Because your post changed the semantic context from "it raises issues" to "they have issues." You presented a counter argument to something the original quote simply did not say.

It may very well be the likely case that your spin is indeed the film's position, but you haven's seen the film, I haven't seen the film, no one here has seen the film. So with whom are you disagreeing when you say, "Do detractors really have free speech issues?" No one on the board said they do, the quote posted doesn't say they do. The film MIGHT say they do, but arguing against a position then you're arguing against a position that hasn't even been presented to the people your talking to, that you haven't even yourself seen.