Police attacking the left across Midwest

[Sava]

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

There's a difference between standing on a public road and blocking a private building.

[Sava]

oh and if creating traffic problems is illegal, than does that mean I can sue the Illinois Tollway authority?

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

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.

Didn't you just refute yourself?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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. "

Yes, the famous attack on Capital Hill, where no protest was occuring. The media wasn't there, so they are taking the police's word for it. According to the people who live in that neighborhood, however, there was no protest. The police showed up, closed off the neighborhood, and attacked it. The people arrested were shoppers and people going out for the evening. The police caught a lot of heat for that one.

[lord of the mark]

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?

as far as i can tell the building was in violation, and the law required them to cease residence as soon as it was condemned.

If i drive down the highway at 56 MPH in a 55 zone,with a bumper sticker that says "screw the cops" can i make a first amendment case that most people dont get stopped at 56MPH????

[Berzerker]

There's a difference between standing on a public road and blocking a private building.

If they are standing on a public sidewalk, do they now have the freedom to block others?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

Didn't you just refute yourself?

Apparently so. OWN GOAL!

Actually, these days, the only place protest is allowed are inside fenced off locations far from the event being protested. Even parks aren't allowed. You can only protest out of the media eye.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

It doesn't say anything about peaceful assembly. It doesn't say all non-violent protest is always protected. If you block the street, you are violating the rights of others to go where they wish.

oh and Imran, the Constitution sets out limitations for holding public office... restrictions for anything other than the minimum requirements are unconstitutional.

Um... not quite that simple. Why is any thing other than those minimum requirements unconstitutional? Only because the Supreme Court said so. Plenty of law profs and others believe that decision to be wrong. Btw, that reading by the SC invalidated a term limit provision. Many thought that was wrong, because minimum requirements should be able to be augmented. It makes sense to ban convicted felons from office.

However (and this is the point) it says NOWHERE that you cannot augment the minimum requirements at a later date by law. It simply sets out some requirements.

[Sava]

If you got a ticket for 56, the judge would probably let you go. I got a ticket for 31 in a 25 and the judge said to the officer, "Don't waste my time" and dismissed the case.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Berzerker


If they are standing on a public sidewalk, do they now have the freedom to block others?

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

[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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, the famous attack on Capital Hill, where no protest was occuring. The media wasn't there, so they are taking the police's word for it. According to the people who live in that neighborhood, however, there was no protest. The police showed up, closed off the neighborhood, and attacked it. The people arrested were shoppers and people going out for the evening. The police caught a lot of heat for that one.

and i should take your word for that? after you posted one-sided story to start this thread, after you denounce the mainstream media for missing the story when they had in fact covered it (and given both sides) when you justify protests that violate the law by deliberately obstructing streets and sidewalks, protests which you had disingenously referred to as peaceful, when you choose to question my own ideological beliefs because i dont share your interpretation of the 1st amendment, an interpretation NOT shared by any Supreme Court justice, even the most liberal,


I will assume your take on the capital hill riots is more spin, and i will not bother doing the research to see what the different sides are. Lord knows you wont try to find both sides.

[Sava]

It doesn't say anything about peaceful assembly

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.

Are you basing your statements on the North Korean Constitution? I'm talking about the USA.

[Berzerker]

Imran, are you suggesting the SC may have been wrong interpreting the Constitution?

chegitz -

Actually, these days, the only place protest is allowed are inside fenced off locations far from the event being protested. Even parks aren't allowed. You can only protest out of the media eye.

There are laws preventing the media from going to these fenced off areas to report on the protestors? Seems like a failure of the media...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, are you suggesting the SC may have been wrong interpreting the Constitution?

Perhaps in that case they were. I'm not sure. Like I've always said, the SC can be wrong, they just can't be unconstitutional.

I'm talking about the USA.

Yeah, so am I? It says people have the right to peacefully assemble. It says NOTHING about having an absolute right to peaceful assembly, which is what you've been arguing.