"Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton
Right to Assemble - Civil RightsThe First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” This provision applies to state government entities through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Though neither the federal Constitution nor any state constitution specifically protects rights of association, the United States Supreme Court and other courts have extended assembly rights to include rights of association.
Rights to free speech and assembly are not absolute under the relevant jurisprudence. Government entities may restrict many types of speech without violating First Amendment protections. Many of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases focus on two main questions: first, whether the restriction on speech was based on the content of the speech; and second, whether the speech was given in a traditional public forum or elsewhere. Some questions focus exclusively on the actual speech, rather than on aspects of the right to assembly. Other questions contain aspects of both the right to free speech and the right to assemble peacefully. Cases addressing free speech plus some conduct in the exercise of assembly rights often pose complex questions, since either the speech rights or the assembly rights may not protect the parties in these types of cases.
Since the courts take into consideration such a variety of factors when determining whether a particular speech or whether a particular assemblage is protected by the First Amendment, it is difficult to provide a concise definition of rights of assembly. Even in areas where a government entity may restrict speech or assembly rights, courts are more likely to find a violation of the First Amendment if speech or assembly is banned completely. Some restrictions merely involve the application for a permit or license to assemble, such as obtaining a license to hold a parade in a public street. Other time, place, and/or manner restrictions may also apply.
Thank you, Quazi!
Last edited by Jryan; 10-26-11 at 01:27 PM.
-JryanI'm coming to see that no matter what law we regulate, be it the stand your ground act, there is never an objective morally right answer to any morale question; in fact, since there are multiple objectively right answers to every moral question that leaves us with a lot of grey area and a lot of black area (not in the racial since).
What has been posted here thus far is nothing more than a standard "activist jobs" ad from craigslist. Almost identical to those from any other non profit activism group.
The "acorn is paying people to protest" meme is completely unsupported by any real evidence.
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
They marched on the street. They didn't take over private property. They weren't pitching tents on public land. They didn't throw paint cans at the police.Background of the Case -- Your first cite.
The 187 petitioners consisted of African-American high school and college students who peacefully assembled at the Zion Baptist Church in Columbia South Carolina on March 2, 1961. The students marched in separate groups of roughly 15 to South Carolina State House grounds to peacefully express their grievances regarding civil rights of African-Americans. The crowd of petitioners did not engage in any violent conduct and did not threaten violence in any manner, nor did crowds gathering to witness the demonstration engage in any such behavior. Petitioners were told by police officials that they must disperse within 15 minutes or face arrest. The petitioners failed to disperse, opting to sing religious and patriotic songs instead. Petitioners were convicted of the common law crime of breach of the peace.
The Court's Decision
The Supreme Court held that in arresting, convicting and punishing the petitioners, South Carolina infringed on the petitioners’ rights of free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition for a redress of grievances. The Court stated that these rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States.
These people were refused a permit. The law requiring the permit was viewed as too broad and struck down.Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Petitioner was Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth an African American minister who helped lead 52 African Americans in an orderly civil rights march in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. He was arrested and convicted for violating 1159 of the city's General Code, an ordinance which proscribes participating in any parade or procession on city streets or public ways without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. Section 1159 permits the Commission to refuse a parade permit if its members believe "the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused." Petitioner had previously been given to understand by a member of the Commission that under no circumstances would petitioner and his group be allowed to demonstrate in Birmingham. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that 1159, as written, unconstitutionally imposed an "invidious prior restraint" without ascertainable standards for the granting of permits, and that the ordinance had been discriminatorily enforced. However, the Alabama Supreme Court in 1967 narrowly construed 1159 as an objective, even-handed traffic regulation which did not allow the Commission unlimited discretion in granting or withholding permits, and upheld petitioner's conviction. The case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Shuttleworth was represented by the prominent civil rights attorney James Nabrit.
Writing for the court, Justice Potter Stewart held that (1) even though the actual construction of § 1142 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, the judicial construction of the ordinance prohibited only standing or loitering on public property that obstructed free passage, but it was unclear from the record, whether the literal or judicial construction was applied; and (2) the literal construction of § 1132 of the Birmingham General City Code was unconstitutional, and the statutory application revealed that it applied to the enforcement of an officer's order in directing vehicular traffic. Even though justice Stewart's opinion for the Court mentioned that "the Supreme Court of Alabama performed a remarkable job of plastic surgery upon the face of the ordinance", the Court reversed Shuttlesworth's conviction because the circumstances indicated that the parade permit was denied not to control traffic, but to censor ideas.
Neither of these two cases apply to the OP where....
Setting up a Tent City in violation of any major city's ordinances...refusing to disband so the area could be cleaned up at the very least...blocking traffic...throwing paint cans...throwing bottles...refusing to obey police direct orders enforced for the safety and health of the entire community....yeah, your examples are right on target.On Tuesday, Occupy Oakland demonstrators clashed with police, who used tear gas at least three times in futile attempts to fully disperse the more than 1,000 people who took to the streets after the early-morning raid of the movement's encampment. ["Tent City" Please explain where we have the right to camp out on public property without permission.]
The rolling protest came about 12 hours after hundreds of police from across the Bay Area rousted about 300 people from the two-week old camp at Frank H. Ogawa Plaza. Tensions escalated after protesters vowed to return to the plaza, which was left with tents overturned and food, carpet, personal belongings and mounds of trash strewed on the lawn.
"We had to deploy gas to stop people from throwing rocks and bottles at police," said Interim Police Chief Howard Jordan, adding that he was unsure about what other crowd control methods were used by outside police agencies. There were unconfirmed reports that flash-bang grenades and wood dowels were launched at protesters.
Following the pre-dawn raid, about 500 protesters initially met at the main branch of the Oakland library at 4 p.m., chanting that they would "reclaim" what they now call Oscar Grant Plaza named for the unarmed man who was killed in 2009 by a BART police officer.
The demonstrators sparred with hundreds of police for more than six hours forcing police to close streets, reroute traffic and launch four rounds of bean bags into the crowd of protesters.
At one of the most tense moments near Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, sparks from explosives thrown at police by protesters and tear gas canisters could be seen exploding over the scattering crowd.
The number of protest injuries were not immediately known, but two officers were hurt when protesters splattered them with paint.
As of late Tuesday, the crowd had not dispersed and an earlier tweet by Occupy Oakland organizers gave locations where the group wanted people to congregate and urged demonstrators to "bring bottles."
Chief Jordan said 102 people were arrested Tuesday, the majority taken into custody before dawn. Many were taken to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin and held on $10,000 bail each. Occupy Oakland organizers flooded the office of Mayor Jean Quan and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office with demands the protesters be cited and released. Those arrested included people from as far away as Florida and Illinois, a city official said. Police said the protesters would likely be out of jail by Wednesday.
On Tuesday evening, the group wound its way from the main branch of the Oakland Public Library to the city's jail and then to Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, which had been the epicenter of Occupy Oakland and the site of a tent city where about 300 people lived for two weeks.
Ordering the campers to leave with their belongings or risk arrest, before dawn Tuesday, at least 200 law enforcement officers from agencies across the Bay Area amassed around the plaza, moving in and overturning tents, ripping down cardboard signs, and within 30 minutes clearing out the occupiers.
Protesters tried to hold police off with firecrackers, a fire extinguisher, the Police Department's own barriers, metal Dumpsters, and even the City Hall Christmas wreath, police and protesters said. One man walked around carrying a giant shield he had fashioned out of duct tape.
One officer said that during the camp shutdown, protesters threw bottles, skillets, other kitchen utensils and rocks at police. They also "threw plates at us like Frisbees," the officer said. Police confirmed that protesters had set off a fire extinguisher and several low-level explosives to try to deter oncoming police.
Frank H. Ogawa Plaza will remain closed until public health and safety conditions can be improved; this includes debris, human waste and hazardous materials removal.
In an interview Tuesday, Quan -- who is in Washington, D.C., on city business -- said City Hall "has been trying to walk a fine line between free speech and public safety." But by the second week, she said, "it was apparent that neither the demonstrators nor the city could maintain safe or sanitary conditions, or control the ongoing vandalism."
Thank you, Quazi!
I realize that freedom of speech protects the rights of these embarassments of society to demonstrate their uselessness and cluelessness for all to see.......
But couldn't we just mix a real bullet in every now and then just for fun? I mean, who's going to notice the difference?
I kid, I kid.
Last edited by Erod; 10-26-11 at 02:52 PM.
There is a world of difference between what rights you 'think' you have and what rights you actually have. When the police are telling you that you are inviolation of city and state ordinances its probably a pretty good bet that you ARE...regardless of whether or not you think you SHOULD. When a police officer informing them of the rules is met by a chorus of **** YOU PIGS!!!...well...its a pretty good bet things arent going to have the kind of end you THINK they should have. Just because you THINK 'thems my RIGHTS!!!'...odds are...you dont have the first ****ing clue about your 'rights' as per the law.
Some flash grenades, tear gas and rubber bullets are to expected in a protest of this magnitude. It is gaining strength and the status quo doesn't approve. Unfortunately, I doubt this will go on much longer without some deaths. This is the 1960s all over again.