Chrysler 300M Enthusiasts Club
  • Freedom of assembly

  • A place to discuss the politics of the day.
Ocean City 2019 Banner

Membership Banner

A place to discuss the politics of the day.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
 #268807  by Bigsplash
 
Amendment I
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.


In light of brutal kettling tactics employed by NY police, and people being intimidated by the threat of arrest, is free speech and freedom of assembly still alive and well?
User avatar
 #268821  by Bill Putney
 
Sure is (except when liberals try to do things like pass anti-free speech legislation like the so-called "Fairness Doctrine").

When the concentration of people was enough to impede the rights and normal activities of others, did they apply for the proper permits so everybody could be accommodated and everybodys' rights protected? Or did they set up tents and other camping gear and intentionally block streets and sidewalks so as to impede normal activities of others?

Or do you believe as was expressed here a few weeks ago that the purpose of protest is defeated if you aren't allowed to violate the rights of others in doing so? (direct quote: "What freakin' good is a protest if the intended audience gets to conveniently avoid it?")

When they crapped on police cars, were they arrested? I'm not sure - all I heard is that they did it - didn't hear if they were arrested. If not they should have been. Is taking a crap on a police car protected by the Constitution? Probably not - since it's probably illegal to defecate in public.

The right to free speech is not absolute. Even Canada's laws recognize that - in fact it restricts speech of certain types that our laws allow. Do Canada's laws call defecating on police cars and having sex in public free speech?

Unlike Canada, pretty much people are allowed free speech and assembly here as long as they are not doing other illegal things in the excercise thereof. It isn't the free speech or assembly that they are arrested for. It's the illegal activities they are doing at the same time or doing it in such a way that it is violating the rights of others. See the difference? (of course you do) Maybe some day Canada will have the same high standard and not restrict speech based on the content of the speech.

So, going back to the text from the 1st Amendment that you quoted, are you saying that Congress passed a law abridging free speech or assembly. If so, when did that happen?
User avatar
 #268838  by Bigsplash
 
My concern is with people demonstrating and voicing their concern in a peaceful manner, and then being kettled, beaten and arrested. This is an intimidation tactic used by police to intimidate people from free assembly. Arbitrarily denying permits, is another form of suppressing public assembly.

I am opposed to unnecessary violence and I would never damage property, however I feel that that must go both ways, authorities must respect citizen's right to voice their opinion without the threat of violent oppression.

As for Canadian free speech, it is similar to American laws, except we don't tolerate hate speech.

Congress never abridged free speech, my question is whether free speech and freedom of assembly are still alive and well?
User avatar
 #268842  by Bill Putney
 
It's all been addressed. Permits that are not applied for can't be granted. Your complaints are groundless. Start protesting the lack of free speech in Canada.

Looks like these people have more free speech than they know what to do with. They don't even know why they are there without someone telling them why they are there.

So they have all the free speech and assembly rights, and they waste it. They have to coach each other with buzzwords to even keep talking. As of this video, they were still waiting for someone to tell them why they are there.

Sad.

"We kept asking the simple question - why you're here - what's your message?"

Occupy Sacramento organizer: "Well right now its kind of vague...so as it stands right now that message team will reveal that tomorrow morning."

(boy, does he look like a deer in the headlights)

User avatar
 #268850  by Bigsplash
 
I don't really know what their position is, nor do I believe that it is up to me to decide whether or not their grievances are valid.

I simply ask the question whether it is still safe for a citizen in New York, to participate in a demonstration, without fear of being harassed or arrested by police? Or any major city in North America.



[youtube]dVHU5tynYpA&feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... sfeed=true

Bill, please don't patronize me and tell me what I should protest, I have never disrepected you, if my thread offends you, then just ignore it.
User avatar
 #268855  by Bill Putney
 
So the marine had his say - he exercised his free speech. So your complaint there is . . . ?

The second one - they are trying to make the way clear - he refuses - and he was handled roughly - he can make a court case out of it if he thinks it was unnecessary roughness. Go for it.

So far I see people assembled and exercising free speech. Refusing to clear the sidewalks for people to use is not exercising free speech or assembly. The question of the rough treatment is a different issue - has nothing to do with free speech or assembly.

You've not made your case as far as I'm concerned. I see people pushing things over the line on purpose so they can feel like they are victims. That's to gain sympathy to their cause which they can't even present in a coherrent fashion - otherwise the theatrics would not be necessary.

Keep in mind the goal of the people who are behind all of this. The rest are pawns who, again, can't even explain why they are there. So the free speech has become the main cause, which they are exercising without knowing what to say.

So to answer your original question, free speech and assembly looks to be doing well. Individual excesses - which I don't see many examples of - can be handled by the courts.

There are real problems that need to be fixed - there's no doubt. But the purpose of all this is not to solve them. There's a darker purpose.

People can squander their rights to free speech and assembly if they want to, which they appear to be doing. I support that right, but I don't have to sympathize with the agenda of those behind this. Unfortunately, the kids involved in the streets don't realize that they are being emotionally manipulated, and the people egging them on don't give a crap about them. BTDT. I said several weeks ago that it's all about narcisism and mayhem and destruction for its own sake. So far that does indeed appear to be the case.
User avatar
 #268857  by slimpants
 
Bill Putney wrote:Or do you believe as was expressed here a few weeks ago that the purpose of protest is defeated if you aren't allowed to violate the rights of others in doing so? (direct quote: "What freakin' good is a protest if the intended audience gets to conveniently avoid it?")
William. Instead of misrepresenting what was expressed, maybe you ought to provide the entire quote and the link to the thread you're referencing like you ordinarily do.

slimpants wrote:Disruptive. So, hedge fund managers have to step around a few bearded hippies banging bongos on the way into the mill. Poor bastards.

Permits? Aren't you incessantly ranting about govt intrusion? What freakin' good is a protest if the intended audience gets to conveniently avoid it?

"Freedom of Assembly", but do it over here in the alley out of sight, wouldja, pls?

That's like during the G8 and G-20 Summits each year; the hosting govt designates an area for the Demonstrators then an hour before game time, a team of overweight cops haul in the huge portable signs so that the phalanx of limousines carrying the foreign dignitaries down the parade route get to see "WELCOME TO OUR BEAUTIFUL DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY!", but not the pissed-off peasants standing like morons behind them.
http://300mclub.org/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=45


Even Fox News would have to giggle by trying to claim that one's rights were violated if it took a Suit five seconds longer to arrive at his office building. Maybe there ought to be a law banning the blind and the wheelchair-bound from ever exiting their cardboard boxes, too.





Bill Putney wrote:... Looks like a lot of staged theatrics to push things to the limits for the purpose of them becoming "victims". In the 2nd video, what's with the girls simultaneously dropping to their knees and going into hysterics - not a policeman within 10 feet of them?
http://300mclub.org/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=30




N.Y. Police Officer Who Pepper-Sprayed Occupy Protesters Is Disciplined




Bill Putney wrote:So the marine had his say - he exercised his free speech. So your complaint there is . . . ?
The marine was only able to have his say and shame the cops without being rag-dolled because he was in uniform AND he's the size of an NFL lineman.

It's called standing up to the bullies' intimidation.





:)



Crap on a cop car. Funny. I've been reading a lot of crap.





.
User avatar
 #268867  by Bigsplash
 
We both see the same video yet see it so differently.

Where you see a marine sergeant exercising his freedom of speech, I see a man disgusted and incensed about police trampling the freedom and rights he has risked his life defending.
He did not see any honor in these police officers. I felt the rage in his voice and I am sure so did the police.

In the second video I see a kid, barely older than my son, in a state of shock and disorientation, not making any aggressive moves but pleading with the officer, and having his dignity smashed into the concrete. The manner of his take down was text book unreasonable use of force and unnecessary under those circumstances. I am sure he had his shoulder and wrist dislocated, and will be sore for days.
Why!? -because he didn't vacate the sidewalk fast enough! This is outrages!

What do you see in the next video, a liberal, a Marxist or socialist agenda to subvert the young, or do you, just maybe, see someone who has a grievance, a genuine concern about the future of our children.
This Video should have been called "10 Steps to closing down an open society"

Because, if America goes down the toilet then so does Canada and the rest of the world.

 #268869  by Tarheel
 
Bill Putney wrote:So the marine had his say - he exercised his free speech. So your complaint there is . . . ?

The second one - they are trying to make the way clear - he refuses - and he was handled roughly - he can make a court case out of it if he thinks it was unnecessary roughness. Go for it.

So far I see people assembled and exercising free speech. Refusing to clear the sidewalks for people to use is not exercising free speech or assembly. The question of the rough treatment is a different issue - has nothing to do with free speech or assembly.

You've not made your case as far as I'm concerned. I see people pushing things over the line on purpose so they can feel like they are victims. That's to gain sympathy to their cause which they can't even present in a coherrent fashion - otherwise the theatrics would not be necessary.

Keep in mind the goal of the people who are behind all of this. The rest are pawns who, again, can't even explain why they are there. So the free speech has become the main cause, which they are exercising without knowing what to say.

So to answer your original question, free speech and assembly looks to be doing well. Individual excesses - which I don't see many examples of - can be handled by the courts.

There are real problems that need to be fixed - there's no doubt. But the purpose of all this is not to solve them. There's a darker purpose.

People can squander their rights to free speech and assembly if they want to, which they appear to be doing. I support that right, but I don't have to sympathize with the agenda of those behind this. Unfortunately, the kids involved in the streets don't realize that they are being emotionally manipulated, and the people egging them on don't give a crap about them. BTDT. I said several weeks ago that it's all about narcisism and mayhem and destruction for its own sake. So far that does indeed appear to be the case.

Bill, why do you even respond to these people, they don't care what you say and they are not worth the bother.
User avatar
 #268934  by Bill Putney
 
I am traveling for the next few days - internet access and computer time limited.

I think I had heard of Naomi Wolf, but did not know much about her. Spurred by the video you posted, I have started researching her - interesting. Want to research some more. I do know that some of her statements in the video you posted are incorrect, and though she has the appearance of claiming to be a strict Constitutionalist, I reserve judgement on that until the additional research.

Interesting facts on her that I discovered so far: She appeared on Glenn Beck's show, has some positive feelings about the tea party movement, and was arrested last week outside of a Huffington Post-sponsored event (which she was to have been a guest at) in Manhattan. Though she is a "flaming liberal", if she truly is a strict Constitutionalist, there may be some common ground here. But warning in advance: If she has one ounce of redistribution-of-wealth crap in her, she is by definition *not* a strict Constitutionalist - that is TBD.

Followup later...
User avatar
 #268945  by slimpants
 
Redistribution-of-wealth crap. You mean like a taxation system?

Like Cheney redistributing a trillion of our dollars to Halliburton for that clever Iraq trip?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarwar-ka ... 26506.html


Or, 16 trillion dollars to keep that charade called the free market system barely alive?

An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news ... 060dcbb3c3





Glenn Beck. That's funny stuff. Who's next, L. Ron Hubbard?




:shock:



BTW: speaking of "flaming", is Mr. Michele O'Bachmann still earning his living by trying to Pray the Gay Away? Not that there's anything wrong with that.




.
User avatar
 #269151  by Bill Putney
 
tarheel wrote:Bill, why do you even respond to these people, they don't care what you say and they are not worth the bother.
Frank - I think that with what we've witnessed here in the last couple of days, you are proven absolutely correct.
User avatar
 #269160  by slimpants
 
< sniff >

You start 'em, I finish 'em.

I'm simply responding to the drivel I read. Fair & Balanced, baby.






Dec 24, 2010:
slimpants wrote:So, it became obvious that many visitors here simply choose not to chime in politically because, like Lisa, they don't want to subject themselves to any potential abuse, implied or otherwise. And, I do realize it's difficult in print to differentiate between attacks and passionate banter. Or, maybe they're simply just uninterested/haven't the time? Regardless, I'll be here to rebut when yous guys start gettin' nutty again...
http://300mclub.org/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 2&start=75





:|




.
User avatar
 #269167  by Bill Putney
 
So when you mock God and espouse abandoning the Constitution and tyrannically confiscating the wealth of those who honorably earned it to make up for what you feel are injustices by others, you're only kidding around? Problem is, people tend to lose their sense of humor about such things when they figure out you aren't kidding but actually believe the stuff you want to pretend you're joking around about.

The things the Occupy movement *claim* to be about may be legitimate, but I refuse to support and associate with the type of absolute scum that such things have attracted who have no intention of fixing anything but who have quite the different agenda, and you can deny that all you want.
User avatar
 #269171  by slimpants
 
Problem is, a free exchange of thoughts is curtailed when posters are incessantly demeaned, belittled, and ridiculed. I think the terms the kids are using these days are cyberbully and D-bag.





Is there anything at all honorable about earning a living calling yourself a "Provider" then writing software with the exclusive task of targeting women with Breast Cancer so that they can then be legally denied coverage, go bankrupt, and die?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ellation/1



I seem to recall a passage in the Bible that calls for overturning the money-changers' table in the Temple. What Would Jesus Do?



:shock:



.