Police attacking the left across Midwest

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Since the Constitution was written.

Um no... the right to protest cannot override someone's right to go about their work.

that why they keep saying "peaceful protests" (though that is disputed wrt Seattle) They want you to think the mean police are stopping folks protesting in the park, trying to keep them from having freedom of speech. What the anarchists are actually trying to do is to shut down a city, to make the city pay for hosting a conference they disapprove of. They are attempting to do everything in their power to PREVENT speech they dislike from happening. They are interested in DIRECT ACTION, not in participating in a Millsian debate.

Bastards.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, you have the right to assemble as long as it doesn't violate other people's rights. You can't paralyze a city because you want to protest. That is why protesters that block streets are arrested for causing a public disturbance!

Btw, if we are going to play that game, I didn't read any amendment that said we can't ban Communists from holding any office.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ok, Poindexter. Since when did a person's right to protest supercede another person's right to not protest?
To simply go to work?

One's in the Constitution, the other isn't. The government cannot suppress a Constitutional right for a non-Constitutional right.

LotM, you ever rehabbed anything? Rocks are used to hold down tarps.

When was the last demonstration your heard of in the US when protestors threw rocks? We've all heard about violent protestors, but these are usually people who are assaulting police nightsticks with their heads and police tear gas with their lungs. The sling shot is indeed suspicious, but most likely it is for exactly what I said, flinging the police's own weapons back at them.

I like how you call yourself a liberal, but are oppsed to the First Amendment.

[SlowwHand]

Sava. One more try, that's all for me.

It's the people's right to assemble, at work, too.
Not just to assemble to be a disruptive force.

[Imran Siddiqui]

a speedy trip to work isn't a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

Read the 9th Amendment... the states can have their own rights guarenteed to its people. And on of those rights is the ability to be able to earn a living. If the city is shut down, you can't do so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
I've read the constitution guys... sorry, but I didn't read the amendment that guaranteed a speedy trip to work. I did, however, read that little, insignificant amendment that allows the right to assemble.

EDIT:
You are correct... but a speedy trip to work isn't a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

right to assemble peaceably - not in a public thoroughfare, deliberately blocking traffic. You can read the Con as you wish, but no court in 214 years agrees with a right to obstruct public thoroughfares.

[Ned]

Lord of the Mark, I am not so sure that Che does not have a case. If the building was condemned only that morning of the raid, the raid appears to have been a sham. If so, it violated the 4th Amendment.

Che, assuming that the raid was an illegal search and siezure, how did the raid impair the commies 1st amendment rights?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
They are interested in DIRECT ACTION, not in participating in a Millsian debate.

Bastards.

If we were allowed to be part of the debate maybe you'd have a point. We aren't, so we must make ourselves heard by other, Constitutionally protected methods.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Lord of the Mark, I am not so sure that Che does not have a case. If the building was condemned only that morning of the raid, the raid appears to have been a sham. If so, it violated the 4th Amendment.

Che, assuming that the raid was an illegal search and siezure, how did the raid impair the commies 1st amendment rights?

By putting them in jail so they couldn't attend the protest. Also, their puppets were confiscated, which means they were prevented from engaging in a form or political satire. And please, while I know you want to deride them as commie, they're anarchists, not commies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


When was the last demonstration your heard of in the US when protestors threw rocks? We've all heard about violent protestors, but these are usually people who are assaulting police nightsticks with their heads and police tear gas with their lungs. The sling shot is indeed suspicious, but most likely it is for exactly what I said, flinging the police's own weapons back at them.

LA Times, on the Seattle riots

" According to police, a group of 200 to 300 WTO protesters -- edged out of downtown by the curfew -- moved into the streets of Capitol Hill, where they blocked two major intersections and threatened officers with rocks, bottles and Molotov cocktails. Several windows at local businesses were smashed. At least some protesters charged the police line, department spokesmen said. "

[Sava]

Imran, I shouldn't have to lecture to you on law. Standing in a street is not a violent action... I fail to see how a protest that blocks a street isn't a peaceful assembly.

I'm simply doing an analysis of the Bill of Rights.

oh and Imran, the Constitution sets out limitations for holding public office... restrictions for anything other than the minimum requirements are unconstitutional. So yeah, banning Commies from office is a violation of Civil Rights.

I sure hope you are at the beginning of your law program, because it seems like you have a lot to learn.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
right to assemble peaceably - not in a public thoroughfare, deliberately blocking traffic. You can read the Con as you wish, but no court in 214 years agrees with a right to obstruct public thoroughfares.

If you read it that way, the right to peacably assemble doesn't exist, as there is no way more than three people can gather at any location without impeding the flow of traffic.

BTW, the protest was in a park.

[Berzerker]

www.michealmoore.com

He is a liberal pundit, whose straightforward approach won him an Academy Award for Bowling for Columbine.

An award supposedly for NON-FICTION, an award he should be required to return since so much of it was fiction.

Sava -

You are correct... but a speedy trip to work isn't a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

The freedom to assemble is not a freedom to block others. Would you agree that abortion protestors should be allowed to block abortion clinics?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If we were allowed to be part of the debate maybe you'd have a point. We aren't, so we must make ourselves heard by other, Constitutionally protected methods.

they can publoish papers, post to the internet and do everything else they want. So they dont get an oped piece in the NYT, that gives them the right to break the law? And no, what they did in seattle and dc is not constitutionally protected.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If you read it that way, the right to peacably assemble doesn't exist, as there is no way more than three people can gather at any location without impeding the flow of traffic.

BTW, the protest was in a park.

not the protests in seattle and DC, which the police expected to be copied.