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

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



Message

jlf1961 -> A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 3:29:58 PM)

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.





FirstQuaker -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 3:39:15 PM)

Well, the thought of having to apply, hat in hand, (and then pay a fee, too) to the government for permission to complain about its perceived abuses is a very strange one.

"Permission to speak freely, your Exalted Excellency?"  "That will be 50 buckazoids, and be quick about it, I have a luncheon feast with Very Important People starting in ten minutes."



tazzygirl -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 3:42:08 PM)

Or they can simply deny you the right granted by the Constitution because they want too.

Interesting how that works.



tj444 -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 4:13:43 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.

Apparently having a permit merely regulates, it doesnt inhibit free speech. I would expect thats the same line all states/cities use to justify the permit requirement.

“We would have granted them a permit to go out and preach,” Soubirous explained. “There is a mechanism to be allowed to protest…We don‘t inhibit people’s right to free speech–we regulate it.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-arrested-outside-calif-dmv-for-reading-his-bible-out-loud/



tazzygirl -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 4:18:04 PM)

Guess you wouldnt see the potential abuse in such "regulation".



jlf1961 -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 4:26:17 PM)

Uh, does the constitution allow for such "regulation" of free speech?



tazzygirl -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 5:04:30 PM)

Not that I am aware of. I do enjoy pointing out the idiocy of some posters.



luckydawg -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 5:39:54 PM)

Well the Supreme Court did rule that the Government can pass laws restricting the location of Protestors.

and the Pro choice movement rejoiced when the law ruled that anti Abortion Protestors could be moved away from the clinics.


Other people have the right to use the parks, streets and sidewalks also.

In no way has the non defined message been supressed.


And comparing people going out intentionally trying to get arrested (see skippers posts, its a tactic) to the repression of China or Mynmar is simply nuts.




thompsonx -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 5:50:42 PM)

quote:

And comparing people going out intentionally trying to get arrested (see skippers posts, its a tactic) to the repression of China or Mynmar is simply nuts


Do you only open your mouth to change feet?



thompsonx -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 5:52:55 PM)

quote:

the Pro choice movement rejoiced when the law ruled that anti Abortion Protestors could be moved away from the clinics.


Would you mind telling us how far away the abortion protestors must be, fifty feet...fifty miles???



thompsonx -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 5:54:59 PM)

quote:

In no way has the non defined message been supressed.


So the people in jail and the hospital are not being denied their constitutional rights?
How does one join a protest from behind bars or from a coma in the hospital?



Aylee -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 5:59:08 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.





Jeff, no where does it say that you are allowed to create a public health hazard (human waste), noise problems (chanting, drumming, and what not late into the night), or fire hazards.

You might also consider that part of the permit process is to take care of the expense of additional police that may be needed.

Also, these folks are not just protesting. They are squatting. Something different. These cities also need to get their parks ready for winter. What kind of damage is being down to the grass and other plants?



luckydawg -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:05:21 PM)

You dont have a right to break the law t. And you know it.

The protestors were right back in Oakland in the morning, with the full blessing of the police.

Thier non message is being broadcast. It was not surpressed.

Who the fuck cares what the distance is. The courts have ruled that location can be regulated.


And Skipper and others are very clear that gettign arrested is a tactic. You can pretend otherwise if ya like.

I think they should be able to protest. And if the block the street or sidewalk or abuse the public lands (infringing on other peoples rights) they should get arrested.

I do think other people have the right to use parks also, and expect them to be sanitary.

Do you disagree with that?


I think the people that choose to interfere with the law and others rights in an intentional intent to get arrested might get hurt sometimes. It was thier choice. The guns were not turned on. This is not Syria or Mynmar, nor China.

Despite the hysterical rantings of some people.

No one who is not intentionally trying to get arrested is getting arrested. \\

and the message (whatever it is) is not being surpressed in anyway.



tazzygirl -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:09:38 PM)

quote:

In no way has the non defined message been supressed.


I see many messages... and there definitions are not lot to me.



thompsonx -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:11:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


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.





Jeff, no where does it say that you are allowed to create a public health hazard (human waste), noise problems (chanting, drumming, and what not late into the night), or fire hazards.

It also does not say that you cannot do the above.


You might also consider that part of the permit process is to take care of the expense of additional police that may be needed.


Yes they had to hire extra police to dump all the trash cans over and arrest all of those people exercising their constitutional rights.

Also, these folks are not just protesting. They are squatting.

You mean that they have taken up perminant residence and have claimed the land by "adverse possession"?
Or have you even a clue what it means to be a squatter?


Something different. These cities also need to get their parks ready for winter. What kind of damage is being down to the grass and other plants?

Hmmm...winter in oakland...grass dies ...do you just open your mouth to change feet?




tazzygirl -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:11:34 PM)

quote:

What kind of damage is being down to the grass and other plants?


Not as much damage as the people have experienced.



barelynangel -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:12:11 PM)

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.  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.  The registration also notifies the city when and where police presence may be needed.  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, even on some levels if it gets crazy, assault if they push a cop in the fray etc.  "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. 

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.

Just like anything that wants to congregate, a permit is needed.  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.

All in all, following the laws of the City doesn't mean the City are infringing on any 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, to the police department who will be called upon to preserve the peace when protesters get out of hand or rowdy, to the traffic patrol who will have to deal with any backlash to traffice etc etc etc someone else mentioned any damage to public property, even the grass being damaged etc. Trash pickup etc etc etc. 

I think its really naive for people to not realize the hinderance and cost to a city to allow people to congregate for assembly.  I don't see the congregators hurrying up to pay for things that their assembly causes.

All in all, i see no reason why a group wouldn't get a permit if that was what was required. 

angel



farglebargle -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:19:55 PM)

Rosa Parks didn't apply for any permits when she inconvenienced everyone by refusing to move to the back of the bus, did she?

"You have to give up your seat to a White person" was the Law. Should she have been obedient to it?



tj444 -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:21:10 PM)

FR

"Different locations receive different levels of protection from the courts regarding free speech activities. Some locations, like outside of courthouses, have been traditionally set aside as public forums Other traditional public forums include outside government facilities, all public sidewalks and most public parks. The Government has reserved the right to regulate free speech in what is known as reasonable time, place and manner, i.e. screaming on a megaphone at 4:20 in the morning in a residential neighborhood would probably violate all three standards. Do not rely on law enforcement or administrators to define what activities are permitted at particular locations find out for yourself. The content of your speech is irrelevant in determining reasonable time, place and manner.

Do you need a permit to engage in free speech?
Many types of speech activities do not require a permit. When they are required, the permitting scheme must be content neutral, must not be cost prohibitive and must be granted promptly. Types of speech that generally do not require permits are handing out of literature, petitioning, holding a sign or talking on a soapbox in any public area."

http://www.worldcamp.org/mmm1_055.htm





barelynangel -> RE: A few questions about protests and the 1st amendment (10/26/2011 6:28:20 PM)

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?




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875