Get Off My Lawn: Trump Proposal Could Squelch Protests in D.C.

[Chomsky]

the nationa park service is already funded by the federal government.
these are added costs outside of their normal budgeting.

if you want to protest why should you not be responsible for cleaning up the mess?

Because it would restrain free speech, and free speech is a right.

 

[ludin]

Because it would restrain free speech, and free speech is a right.

It doesn't say what the fee will be.

how does 100 bucks to clean up the mess restrain free speech?
many states require permits to protest. (they include fee's)

doesn't seem to stop them from stopping free speech there.

if those are legal then so is this.

 

[Chomsky]

It doesn't say what the fee will be.

how does 100 bucks to clean up the mess restrain free speech?
many states require permits to protest. (they include fee's)

doesn't seem to stop them from stopping free speech there.

if those are legal then so is this.

You are trying to charge Americans to exercise their rights. Rights are free to exercise. Those that want to charge citizens to exercise their right to speak, to bear arms, to vote, etc., are infringing upon those rights.

 

[ludin]

You are trying to charge Americans to exercise their rights. Rights are free to exercise. Those that want to charge citizens to exercise their right to speak, to bear arms, to vote, etc., are infringing upon those rights.

states charge people all the time to exercise their rights. what part of this don't you understand?
also you have the right to clean up after yourself. if you don't want to clean it up yourself then you
should pay to have it cleaned up.

 

[Chomsky]

states charge people all the time to exercise their rights. what part of this don't you understand?
also you have the right to clean up after yourself. if you don't want to clean it up yourself then you
should pay to have it cleaned up.

And if they charge, it infringes upon that right Ludin. What part of that, don't you understand? Don't trust your government to charge you to express your rights, Ludin. Because firstly it's wrong, and secondly it often leads to further repression. We saw this with the "tax" on automatic weapons. Don't be a sap, because sooner or later that charge will be used politically, if it already isn't so in this case.

 

[TheParser]

Should they have to do a mile away so as not to disturb the justices and employees as they go to and fro?

They should not be allowed to stand on and block the steps.

Neither should they be allowed to enter the Capitol building in order to yell and scream at our elected representatives.

A free society does NOT mean that people can act in a disorderly manner.

 

[JasperL]

They should not be allowed to stand on and block the steps.

Neither should they be allowed to enter the Capitol building in order to yell and scream at our elected representatives.

A free society does NOT mean that people can act in a disorderly manner.

What's "disorderly?" Sounds like you don't believe in the right of free speech or "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If people aren't allowed into the Capitol building, and presumably shouldn't confront them in public such as at restaurants, exactly how do you propose the proles "petition the government for a redress of grievances" unless they also come with a big check? Maybe that's the idea - that protests should be limited to lobbyists and big donors carrying hefty campaign contributions?

 

[TheParser]

What's "disorderly?" Sounds like you don't believe in the right of free speech or "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If people aren't allowed into the Capitol building, and presumably shouldn't confront them in public such as at restaurants, exactly how do you propose the proles "petition the government for a redress of grievances" unless they also come with a big check? Maybe that's the idea - that protests should be limited to lobbyists and big donors carrying hefty campaign contributions?

In my lifetime, the biggest "redress of grievances" was probably the Civil Rights Movement.

Can you imagine the Rev. Mr. King walking into the Capitol and screaming at our elected representatives?

Can you imagine the Rev. Mr. King walking into a restaurant and chasing other patrons out?


We "petition" in many ways:


1. We take our grievances to court.

2. We work with our elected representatives to introduce bills.


3. We get the media to expose injustices.


4. We get permits to peacefully march. (We do NOT act like those Antifa thugs in Portland!)

 

[JasperL]

In my lifetime, the biggest "redress of grievances" was probably the Civil Rights Movement.

Can you imagine the Rev. Mr. King walking into the Capitol and screaming at our elected representatives?

Can you imagine the Rev. Mr. King walking into a restaurant and chasing other patrons out?

No, but I can imagine blacks marching in huge numbers, blocking traffic, 100s of thousands of them bringing the National Mall in D.C. to a halt, to hear him speak, because that's part of our history. The key is "peaceful" not "polite and that do not inconvenience anyone."

We "petition" in many ways:

1. We take our grievances to court.

2. We work with our elected representatives to introduce bills.

3. We get the media to expose injustices.

4. We get permits to peacefully march. (We do NOT act like those Antifa thugs in Portland!)

And we don't act like neo-Nazi, alt-right thugs either, if you're mentioning splinter groups.

Yes, and most of those protests in D.C. were permitted. And you suggested that the proles shouldn't be allowed on the steps of the USSC or in the Capitol. Of course they should be allowed - again, the standard is peaceful, not polite.

You're talking about tactics not rights. I don't care what you prefer, just about what rights we have. If I want to stand on the steps and yell, in a free society I should have that RIGHT to do so, not the "right" to be shunted off to some 'free speech zone' a half mile away where I yell to the clouds. That's not freedom, that is the illusion of the right to protest.

Starting with the original Tea party, unruly, impolite protests have played a significant role throughout our entire history. You can read about this long history if you want.

 

[Northern Light]

First Amendment rights... yeah. Since George W Bush, you need a permit whose approval is based on your planned route (if a march) or planned duration (if stationery) before you can exercise your First Amendment right. If you step out of plan at all, you get jackbooted. Now they want to charge fees for the cost of putting up barricades and other inconveniences.

Protests aren't supposed to be "convenient". They are supposed to obstruct, disrupt, and annoy. In MLK's day, if the government tried these tactics, there would be a massive outcry. Nowadays, people will accept incursions into their basic rights as a normal thing. Hell, they'll even defend it, as long as it's their political enemies getting quashed. People are starting to forget what activism means. We have become soft, fat and complacent. We mock others who protest and cheer their jackbooting, just because we disagree with them.

The proper answer to all of these proposals should be NO EFFING WAY. The White House is entitled to security, but it's still public property. It answers to the People.

Of course now Trump has his lackey on SCOTUS so if someone challenges these proposals in court they will likely be upheld.

 

[Carleen]

the nationa park service is already funded by the federal government.
these are added costs outside of their normal budgeting.

if you want to protest why should you not be responsible for cleaning up the mess?

Tell that to all who celebrate 4th of July celebrations across the nation. Oh right that’s not a protest so it’s okay to leave trash, right?

 

[Moot]

I am curious, which POTUS tried to stop it?

I don't know... but here's a list of SC rulings and precedents that could prevent Trump from arbitrarily closing off the national mall, parks and public streets to protests....

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Controlling+public+protest:+First+Amendment+implications.-a016473804

 

[Praxas]

They should not be allowed to stand on and block the steps.

Neither should they be allowed to enter the Capitol building in order to yell and scream at our elected representatives.

A free society does NOT mean that people can act in a disorderly manner.

So you are against people being able to protest our representatives at their private homes or where they go outside but then you are also opposed to protestors being able to be heard st their places of work. So basically you think the representatives have the right to not have protestors be heard anywhere near them. That’s about as anti 1st amendment as you can get.

How dare the Kings and queens of the senate and the house, along with king Oompa Loompa trump himself have to witness and hear the riffraff they supposedly serve.:roll:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But Remember, it was Obama was always out to destroy the Constitution.

That's DIFFERENT!!!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Read your sentence again. It said the proposed regulation "could" curtail, including the National Mall... It didn't say it would.

Does the phrase "First they came for the ..." ring a bell?

Obviously not.

 

[EnigmaO01]

I think it's been tried before...but obviously it failed thanks to the First Amendment and legal precedent.

It's been done successfully. Protestors couldn't get anywhere near President Bush. They had to protest in designated areas and fenced in.

 

[Moot]

It's been done successfully. Protestors couldn't get anywhere near President Bush. They had to protest in designated areas and fenced in.

I thought we were talking about banning protests on the National Mall, parks and streets around the WH and Capitol.

As for designated areas...I think Obama may have passed a similar bill ...something about protesters keeping a distance from politicians protected by the secret service. I don't know it it's been challenged in court.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I thought we were talking about banning protests on the National Mall, parks and streets around the WH and Capitol.

There will be no such BANS.

Admittedly there just might be a requirement that persons conducting such "protests" possess the documentation which the administrative regulations require them to have else they run afoul of the law for failing to possess the necessary documentation.

You do realize that arresting, charging, trying, convicting, and sentencing someone for "failing to possess the necessary documentation" is NOT the same thing as arresting, charging, trying, convicting, and sentencing someone for "exercising their First Amendment Rights" - don't you?

As for designated areas...I think Obama may have passed a similar bill ...something about protesters keeping a distance from politicians protected by the secret service.

Interesting, do you have any actual evidence to back up what you think may have happened?

I don't know it it's been challenged in court.

If there was no such law, it likely hasn't been challenged in court.

If there was such a law, it likely was challenged in court.

If it was challenged in court, you would likely be able to find some sort of media reference to that happening.