RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment

RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:34:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel I believe part of that registration is to confirm that they will not be interfering with the FREEDOM of others by congregating in areas wherein other people will be extremely hindered or security of people will be hindered. You may not be aware of it but the constitution would not have been approved if the bill of rights had not been guarenteed beforehand. Would you care to hazard a guess as to why this one was at the top of the list? Don't you think the will of the people is more important than some bureaucrat getting back from lunch on time? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to infringe on the rights of others, like using a public street, sidewalk, park etc. How does expressing ones political opinions in public infringe on the rights of others? In public is where political dissent needs to be. The registration also notifies the city when and where police presence may be needed. Yes they were needed early in the dark hours of the morning to teargas and beat u.s. citizens lawfully assembled to seek redress of their grievences. I also believe the registration protects the gatherers from being cited or arrested for OTHER laws they may be breaking if they had no permit -- i.e., loitering, creating a public disturbance, disturbing the peace etc, You mean phony excusses. even on some levels if it gets crazy, assault if they push a cop in the fray etc. That is called battery assault is verbal. "Peaceful" assembly can quickly become mob assembly and in the end, its not the MOB who will be held legal responsible, it will be the city which allowed the mob to congregate. Well it is pretty well documented that the cops are the ones created the mob. Be careful that in needing to protect the rightsof protesters, you forget that people who aren't protesting deserve the protection of not being hindered in their daily life because someone else is crying about their 1st Amendment rights. It would appear that your position is that those who wish to exercise their constitutional rights should just shut the fuck up so as to not offend you or your friends. Just like anything that wants to congregate, a permit is needed. Maybe in your world but not in my country. Trying to whinge because a group of protesters need a permit to congregate is silly as permits tend to be needed for any type of congregation in a public place. Then why does the constitution not state that a permit is required to exercise the rights prescribed there in? All in all, following the laws of the City doesn't mean the City are infringing on any rights, Only if the laws of the city do not infringe on rights expressed in the constitution and the bill of rights. the City has a DUTY to ALL of its citizens, not just the ones who want to congregate in a public place and protest but those who aren't a part of the protest and are trying to go about their daily lives, How does that allow the city to suspend the first ammendment? to the police department who will be called upon to preserve the peace when protesters get out of hand or rowdy, For you to not know that it was the police who broke the peace and not the protesters is beyond belief. Perhaps you should go to the thread with the pic and take a look and disabuse yourself of your ignorance. to the traffic patrol who will have to deal with any backlash to traffice etc etc etc. That is what we pay them to do...it is their job. All in all, i see no reason why a group wouldn't get a permit if that was what was required. What would be their recourse if the permit were denied? angel

Masta808 -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:35:10 PM)
I dont see a problem. The government can regulate speech. Thats why I say the government needs to regulate the protestors and move them from Wall Street to the middle of a Lake. There the protestors can protest all they want and we dont have to hear a damn thing about it. And NO I DONT want the same for when the Tea Party Protest only for liberal. Thats being FAIR.

jlf1961 -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 7:14:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel farglebargle, the LA riots hurt a lot of people around 2000 i believe and killed 50 something, damages a lot of property topped $1 billion and that's not even counting overtime for cops and firefighters, the fear of an average person who were prisoners in their homes etc -- should those protesters have been obedient to the law? The protestors during the LA riots were at the court house where the verdict was handed down. The rioters were NOT protesters.

jlf1961 -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 7:16:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Masta808 I dont see a problem. The government can regulate speech. Thats why I say the government needs to regulate the protestors and move them from Wall Street to the middle of a Lake. There the protestors can protest all they want and we dont have to hear a damn thing about it. And NO I DONT want the same for when the Tea Party Protest only for liberal. Thats being FAIR. Read the first amendment again Masta, the government CANNOT regulate speech. Of course, there have been recent events in history where the government did regulate speech, Iran, China, Nazi Germany. Not a good place to be when claiming the government can regulate free speech.

Termyn8or -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 8:41:47 PM)
Some riots are OK and others aren't. T^T

LafayetteLady -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 8:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Alright, some of the people involved in the "occupy" movement that are being arrested are being charged with not having a permit. Somehow, I do think that requiring someone to purchase a permit to "peacefully assemble" in protest seems to side step the amendment. It means, in essence, that the permit can be denied, and thus it would be illegal to march in protest against anything. I am sure that the conservatives and liberals can agree that the right to protest without a permit is in the constitution. The Constitution provides guidelines. Those guidelines, by the way, were written in a totally different time. The population was considerably less, the environment considerably different. The people here constantly bitching about Constitutional Rights typically haven't got a logical thought process in their head. How about the right to bear arms? The government regulates that. Do you think every nutjob and violent felon should be able to go buy a gun without any regulation? Some of you do, but then you probably wouldn't qualify for the permit. Of course, when that part of the Constitution was written, people were still hunting for their food, not going to the grocery store, and not all areas had police to protect them. How about that Westboro church? Should those people be allowed to interrupt funerals, just because they are crazy and want to protest? How about those pro life people standing in front of the door of Planned Parenthood? They block and intimidate, by their mere presence, so women don't go in. Is it not right to regulate where they can walk with their picket signs? How about the Ku Klux Klan? Should they be able to march in front of a Black church and scare the hell out of the worshipers? That's the problem with these moronic statements. You want regulation when it suits you, but bitch about it when it doesn't. You don't get to have it both ways. You want a free for all, with the Constitution standing alone without laws that define what they mean, go start your own fucking country. The fact is that the Constitution was written and the laws that require permits for protesting and to buy guns all went through a legal process where the Supreme Court decided that a little more definition needed to be applied to the broad terms written in the Constitution. Since no one here is remotely qualified to make those decisions, bitch all you want, because that is all it is, bitching. You really want to do something about it? Go protest in a place that requires a permit, get arrested and when you are in Court, argue your "Constitution Right." Let a Court explain to you why you are ignorant and lack understanding not only of the Constitution, but of the laws that support it.

Termyn8or -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 9:39:47 PM)
Well LL, you have succeeded. You have proven why democracy was a bad idea. YOU can't have it both ways. If you think this is a democracy then you think that people should be able to make trouble when they are pissed. That would mean at a bank, ESPECIALLY at a government building or on any public property, but also private property, because democracy is only socialism disguised. In a true republic people would act and interact in a friendly manner as a group, but when they day is over each is as separate as if in exile, but with his family. There were abuses, but that is not my problem. A Man's home was sacrocanct, a veritable castle, whether he is a pauper or a senator. This ideal has never been met. Let them fight. Let them fight to the last Man, really. Get it over with. Protests are just a cycle, and if you want something to think about : Tianemen Square over to China, do you think the government would have taken that course of action without confidence in their economic and political standing's security ? I mean without MFN, without the ridiculous amount of trade that has made them rich, GUARANTEED, do you think they would have pulled a "Kent State" over there ? I think they would've but without the cameras. T^T

Real0ne -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 11:15:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Or they can simply deny you the right granted by the Constitution because they want too. Interesting how that works. the constitution does not grant any rights, it reserves them. Of course when they created the quasi deMOBcracy and usurped the constitution that is more true than not.

DarqueMirror -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/27/2011 12:37:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I am sure that the conservatives and liberals can agree that the right to protest without a permit is in the constitution. I don't recall seeing the words "without a permit" in the language of the amendment. If permits can't stop marching or protesting, I'll be taking my un-licensed, un-permitted, unnecessary heavy machine gun now. You know...just in case I feel like owning one.

HannahLynn -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/27/2011 1:00:19 AM)
i guess dingleberry there doesn't understand the word "abridged" as opposed to "infringed". not too fucking surprising really.

jlf1961 -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/27/2011 12:55:21 PM)
Actually, the ACLU have won a number of cases where people were arrested for protesting without a permit, after the request for such a permit was DENIED. What you are basically saying is that it is alright for the government to regulate free speech. As I pointed out, Nazi Germany, China, Iran, Iraq under Saddam, Syria, and a few other countries regulate free speech, you are indeed in good company. By the way, read the amendment again, there are no guidelines stating what you have to do, what permits you have to have, OR what you can do to protest.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/27/2011 2:52:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Alright, some of the people involved in the "occupy" movement that are being arrested are being charged with not having a permit. Somehow, I do think that requiring someone to purchase a permit to "peacefully assemble" in protest seems to side step the amendment. It means, in essence, that the permit can be denied, and thus it would be illegal to march in protest against anything. I am sure that the conservatives and liberals can agree that the right to protest without a permit is in the constitution. Not if the SCOTUS decisions mean anything. Time place and manner are subject to local limitations.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125