- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 11,655
- Reaction score
- 3,612
- Location
- WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Back of the bus, dirty smelly protesters. (I know I'm overexagerating)
Do you honestly think that people have the right to pitch a tent anywhere in America, and exercise their right of free speech? Anywhere? How about the middle of an intersection? On a freeway overpass? How about blocking access to public buildings, like city halls, libraries, schools? Is it okay to block access to a hospital to protest nurse's salaries? Block fire vehicles inside fire stations to protest a new fire tax?
Is it okay for them to pitch tents in your front yard, block access to your house and protest you?
Sorry but your statement is ridiculous on its face. There always have been and always will be limits to how, where, and what can be exercised as free speech.
I think that's an important point. From what I've seen of the negative responses to you, justabubba and others' comments, the common sentiment seems to be "it's the law, just follow it" which rests on the implication that the law is just and reasonable. However, what none of these responses take into account is the spirit of the law and purposes that they serve. What many government officials advertise as laws made for "safety concerns" are simply laws made so that protests don't attract attention, get noticed and have a real impact.
"It's the law" has never been and never will be a sufficient response to criticisms of the laws themselves.
I'll by that for a dollar, but I don't think a 74 year old man is much of a threat to cops. Not the kind of threat that warrants knocking the guy on his ass.
Rightwing authoritarian types just dont get non-violent civil disobedience. They think the "disobedience" part of it means "obey every law" :lol:
Declaring specific areas off limits and relegating demonstrations to places that are unseen and outside common areas are a useful way to minimize the impact of a demonstration, creating marginalization and thus diminishing the rights to assembly. We need to be very careful about being denied our constitution rights through these types of regulations. So I don't have a bone to pick with people who do not want to be denied their speech for legitimate grievences.
There is a good reason people have issues with things such as free speech zones and what not. Unless there is an impact on public safety (which is not the same thing as creating an inconvienence for people), these things should not be regulated away from the citizenry.
You must be a medical miracle then.My generation invented "civil disobedience."
Looks like a law was made that stops a persons right to peacably assemble.
Thats like saying you have the right to drink water. But, only 1 cup a day.
Or you have a right to stay up as long as you want but, im giving you a sedative at 10.
Or you can take a dump.... But im going to install this colostomy bag.
There is already a movement trying to recall two of the members - both Tea Party.candidly, I can not offer an opinion on those decisions since I do not know about the fiscal condition of your county. If these councilmen have truly screwed up, they will be easily replaced in the next elect cycle.
Do you honestly think that people have the right to pitch a tent anywhere in America, and exercise their right of free speech? Anywhere? How about the middle of an intersection? On a freeway overpass? How about blocking access to public buildings, like city halls, libraries, schools? Is it okay to block access to a hospital to protest nurse's salaries? Block fire vehicles inside fire stations to protest a new fire tax?
Is it okay for them to pitch tents in your front yard, block access to your house and protest you?
Sorry but your statement is ridiculous on its face. There always have been and always will be limits to how, where, and what can be exercised as free speech.
I think that's an important point. From what I've seen of the negative responses to you, justabubba and others' comments, the common sentiment seems to be "it's the law, just follow it" which rests on the implication that the law is just and reasonable. However, what none of these responses take into account is the spirit of the law and purposes that they serve. What many government officials advertise as laws made for "safety concerns" are simply laws made so that protests don't attract attention, get noticed and have a real impact.
"It's the law" has never been and never will be a sufficient response to criticisms of the laws themselves.
Back in the day, being arrested was like a badge of courage for our convictions.
It's common respect and courtesy to stay off the newly placed sod. Laws be damned. Have some respect.
I neither support nor condemn them. As I said, Ikari's point was important and valid response to the "it's the law" criticisms. :shrug:Cool....
So you support a cordon of all the protestors standing on the new sod and demanding they pay a tax or go to jail for damage to property then?
I neither support nor condemn them. As I said, Ikari's point was important and valid response to the "it's the law" criticisms. :shrug:
"It's the law" would not be a legitimate argument against you keying my car either. :shrug:Cool......
So, As my symbol of expression and protest of the use of Motor Vehicles instead if bicycles, I shall "peacefully" key your car.
Glad to know that "Its the law" can't stop my "peaceful" expression of damaging property.
"It's the law" would not be a legitimate argument against you keying my car either. :shrug:
So..... if someone is of a certain age they are allowed to take certain aggressive actions?
I would suggest that if the police ask multiple times not to do something and you still do it, you will be inconvenienced. And just so I'm clear... (your double negative - so I'm assuming you mean "People have have the right to not be inconvenienced"), and where is that right written again?People do not have a right to not be inconvienced, so long as they are not harmed, so that invalidates most of your argument, especially if the demonstration is in a public space such as a park or a street.
Since we only have a clip of what occurred, you don't really know that.Also, there is no evidence to show that anyone has been harmed or had their safety compromised by this demonstration.
Enough of your bull**** generalizations. My generation invented "civil disobedience." I personally marched to protest the VietNam war and to support Civil Rights. And I knew, as did we all, that when we broke the law with our protests, we'd be subject to arrest.
Nothing has changed. You want to protest illegally? You're subject to arrest. Whining about it, like these wussies are doing, is for babies. Back in the day, being arrested was like a badge of courage for our convictions.
Sure.. no problem...
Just cordon them off and demand a tax from each of them to pay for the repair costs to the new sod.
Otherwise.... arrest them for damage to property... and yes, landscaping can be considered property.
I would suggest that if the police ask multiple times not to do something and you still do it, you will be inconvenienced. And just so I'm clear... (your double negative - so I'm assuming you mean "People have have the right to not be inconvenienced"), and where is that right written again?
So why isn't it anymore? Apparently now, if you get arrested, it means your convictions are invalid.* What changed?
*= Not saying you made this point, just that it has been made. It has even been made several times in this thread.
Cool......
So, As my symbol of expression and protest of the use of Motor Vehicles instead if bicycles, I shall "peacefully" key your car.
Glad to know that "Its the law" can't stop my "peaceful" expression of damaging property.