Police attacking the left across Midwest

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The second they physically prevent someone from entering the building, it's assault.

Thank you for reversing your position . By standing on the street they are physically preventing people from using that public road.

Btw, it wouldn't be assault. Assualt is imminent fear of physical harm. Being not allowed to go somewhere because of a human chain is not enough for assault.

You misunderstood my post. Perhaps I need to rephrase and specify... if somebody uses an action to prevent someone, it's assault or some other legal term that refers to physical harm...

Imran... I've noticed that you like to nit-pick little semantical mistakes that I make, but you don't address the issue.

[Sava]

It says people have the right to peacefully assemble. It says NOTHING about having an absolute right to peaceful assembly,

I hope you have a good minor...

Is this what's known as "Imran's Constitutional Interpretation"?

you have freedom of speech but not ABSOLUTE freedom of speech

you have freedom of religion but not ABSOLUTE freedom of religion

you have freedom of press but not ABSOLUTE freedom of press

I'm so glad that there are more rational people that interpret our laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've noticed that you like to nit-pick little semantical mistakes that I make, but you don't address the issue.

I AM addressing the issue, and I am doing so by pointing out the little semantical mistakes. I'm a lawyer, that is how we argue AND win!

It seems silly to me to whine about someone using semantical issues when discussing the Constitution, but that is what it is all about: semantics.

Like I've constantly said: You cannot protest if it violates the rights of other people. There are NO absolute rights in the Constitution. All can exemptions and usually those exemptions deal with the rights other people have.

Take for example shouting 'FIRE' in crowded movie theatre. You'd argue you have a right to free speech, as said in the 1st Amendment. But you don't because you are violating the rights of others by causing a public disturbance resulting in injury (most likely). There is NO Constitutionally specified right to not being subject to injury, but everyone agrees with the principle. The same applies with blocking streets. You are violating the rights of others to be free of public disturbances and get where they need to go, in the process preventing economic injury or because there is a right to movement and travel. They ain't in the Constitution, but it is a right that the states have given to its people.

[Berzerker]

Sava -

The second they physically prevent someone from entering the building, it's assault.

Then it's "assault" when any protestor intentionally blocks people from moving about on public property, not freedom of assembly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm so glad that there are more rational people that interpret our laws.

Everyone that has been on the Supreme Court this century would agree with the three statements you've posted up there.

There is no absolute freedom of speech (yelling fire in a movie theatre). There is no absolute freedom of religion (you can't smoke peyote, even if that is your religious belief). There is no absolute freedom of the press (the government can prevent you from printing things that harm national security).

Go ahead, Sava, look it up.

[Sava]

Sure there are exemptions... you can't yell "FIRE" in a theatre, etc.

But then you have to prove that blocking traffic is more harmful than restricting the freedom to protest whatever the people are protesting.

That's how laws like that come about. Somebody proved that the freedom to yell fire wasn't as important because the consequence of doing so.

So Imran... PROVE to me that blocking traffic is a terrible enough offense to justify the restriction.

IMO, I think that police should be able to break up protests that block streets. But that doesn't justify the on-topic action of the police. That's my point. In your crusade to dodge the point, you failed to address this and thus we skewed into this off-topic tangent that is irrelevant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sure there are exemptions

THEN THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT!

But then you have to prove that blocking traffic is more harmful than restricting the freedom to protest whatever the people are protesting.

The amount of money lost to business by roads being clogged up is staggering. This is common sense. Trucks can't move, people can't make meetings or go to work. For days the city is paralyzed. If people can't go to work, then how will anything get done?

This is just common sense that the results of blocking traffic is terrible enough to prevent protesters from blocking the streets.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you can ask LOTM and Adam Smith both how they enjoyed Washington DC when the protestors came to town?

I think that police should be able to break up protests that block streets. But that doesn't justify the on-topic action of the police.

Because the protesting groups having weapons to attack police with should be protected, right?

[oedo]

constitutional freedom can be summarized to a simple formula: everybody has the right to do whatever he likes to, unless he disturbs the constitutional rights of other people or the community. so indeed there is no absolute freedom.
constitutional law tries to create a balance between the colliding rights of individuals/community. (at least it works this way in Germany but I would be surprised if it would be any different in the US)

[Berzerker]

Sava -

You misunderstood my post. Perhaps I need to rephrase and specify... if somebody uses an action to prevent someone, it's assault or some other legal term that refers to physical harm...

So what's the difference between an abortion protestor using public property to block someone from entering a clinic and another protestor standing on public property to block people driving to the same clinic (or any other business)?

Imran... I've noticed that you like to nit-pick little semantical mistakes that I make, but you don't address the issue.

Imran isn't using semantics, we just pointed out your double standard.

Imran -

You cannot protest if it violates the rights of other people. There are NO absolute rights in the Constitution. All can exemptions and usually those exemptions deal with the rights other people have.

Congress shall make no law...sounds absolute to me. But you're correct, the fact we all have rights limits what we can do.
However, since freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, the definition of freedom already contains a caveat that limits what we can do. So freedom can still be absolute without meaning we can run around violating each others rights.

Take for example shouting 'FIRE' in crowded movie theatre.

Ugh, not one of Holmes better moments.

You'd argue you have a right to free speech, as said in the 1st Amendment. But you don't because you are violating the rights of others by causing a public disturbance resulting in injury (most likely).

We don't have a 1st Amendment right to say or shout what we want while on other people's property, especially when the property owner has contracted with patrons to show a movie in exchange for money. Holmes brought the potential for injury into what is clearly a contractual situation...

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, Berz, but I was merely making a point. Everyone knows about 'Fire' in a theatre, even Sava. The point I was making is that rights are constrained by other rights. You can't step on the rights of others while exercising your own rights.

[oedo]

True, Berz, but I was merely making a point. Everyone knows about 'Fire' in a theatre, even Sava. The point I was making is that rights are constrained by other rights. You can't step on the rights of others while exercising your own rights.

I´d even go further: yelling "fire" in a theatre - even in an empty one - has nothing to do with exercising freedom of speech, as long as there obviously is no fire in the theatre.
in that case of course you still are free to do nonsense. but I´d rate the freedom of doing nonsense as less important than the freedom of speech.

[Sava]

Imran: In response to the loss of money in DC, well then they have every right to move their businesses out of the DC area. Part of living in an area is knowing about potential problems. DC, being the capital, is more prone to large protests. I fail to feel sorry for people that suffer because of this.

Because the protesting groups having weapons to attack police with should be protected, right?

It isn't illegal to own a slingshot.

Let me clarify my point. You can choose to address it or not, I don't really care, but I am not going to respond to any more of your dodging.

My point:

The police were wrong, used illegal means, and violated the civil rights of the individuals mentioned in the thread.

[Berzerker]

Imran, agreed.

C'mon Sava, why would one group of people have a freedom to assemble on public property (btw, the 1st Amendment doesn't even mention where this freedom of assembly exists) but not others who are using public property to reach other assemblies? If I want to go to the park to visit with friends - freedom of assembly - why do protestors have a greater right to block me?

[SlowwHand]

Your point is your head.

[Sava]

C'mon Sava, why would one group of people have a freedom to assemble on public property (btw, the 1st Amendment doesn't even mention where this freedom of assembly exists) but not others who are using public property to reach other assemblies? If I want to go to the park to visit with friends - freedom of assembly - why do protestors have a greater right to block me?

create another thread if you want to debate this