|
On November 21 2011 12:16 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:32 Expurgate wrote:On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions. The point being made is that a constitutional right is supposed to override statutory law. I actually disagree with this. Freedom of speech, press, and religion (just to name a few) all have restrictions, with the law being the line that separates the "within your rights" and "illegal/not within your rights". Slander, libel, and Rastafarianism (religion that involves smoking marijuana) are illegal in the US. On the other side of this argument, I can see how staying in parks overnight doesn't harm anyone. In my opinion, just because no one is harmed doesn't mean that it is ok to break the law. EDIT: The law that doesn't allow the protestors to camp in the parks isn't unconstitutional, so constitutional rights shouldn't affect this law, I think. EDIT2: Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:52 semantics wrote:
Only illegal because people don't like seeing homeless people. At least that's my bet, they are nit picking the protesters in order to diffuse the message. Right to assemble should only be disbarred under violent illegal actions not from city ordinance. See it's nit picking how quick you are to put well you don't have a right to protest here so i'm not going to listen. If OWS had more organization they would work on shifts of teams occupying the area all the time which wouldn't be illegal, but that would require more from the members as not everyone can devote lots of time on a regular basis. I'm not being ignorant, I'm entirely open to what they have to say, but when each person says something different and everyone now and then some lunatic says something really crazy, it gets more and more difficult to take the movement seriously. I am against lobbying though, but I do not know if it should be limited or abolished. Also, shifts requiring more from the members? Aren't they already living camping in parks to protest? Wouldn't shifts require less commitment?
Rastafarianism is not illegal in the US. It is quite legal, though I don't think they have a legal precedent about their religious use of marijuana, but Native Americans who do use peyote in legitimate rituals are allowed to do so. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001996---a000-.html
Slander and libel are both legal (and I am not a lawyer so correct me if I am wrong) in the context of public figures. There is a huge distinction made in law between public and political expression and expression about private figures.
|
On November 21 2011 14:20 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:32 Expurgate wrote:On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions. The point being made is that a constitutional right is supposed to override statutory law. Thats the real misconception that I see in this thread. The constitution isn't the rule of law in the land. Statutory law is. You can challenge and sue the city and accuse that the law conflicts with a constitutional right and win. You can't claim a constitutional right in a court when your charged with a crime and win. Quite simply you can't have a society based on even the best principles. You must have specific law and not vague points.
Sure. My phrasing wasn't very good. Constitutionally defined rights and responsibilities are supposed to be the basis of statutory law though, and where statutory law conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins out.
There is a substantial division right now between those who see peaceful protest as protected no matter what under the Constitution, and those who see it as a statutory matter.
|
Anonymous hacktivists assaulted PERF, the Police Executive Research Forum, by taking down their website and releasing the private information of Sherwin B. "Chuck" Wexler - Executive Director at PERF.
PERF is a private but extremely influential national, non-governmental organization with close ties to law enforcement agencies across the country, as well as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The group allegedly orchestrated and coordinated the sometimes brutal police crack down on Occupy Wall Street, and other Occupy movements across the country.
After offering a flat denial of coordinating police activity, the announcement goes on to admit that “PERF conducted two conference calls” with metropolitan police chiefs across the country concerning police response to the Occupy movement. Rather than strengthening their denial, the admission that PERT was conducting conference calls only strengthens the case that PERT was involved in advising and coordinating the police crackdown on the Occupy movement.
Source
|
On November 21 2011 15:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Anonymous hacktivists assaulted PERF, the Police Executive Research Forum, by taking down their website and releasing the private information of Sherwin B. "Chuck" Wexler - Executive Director at PERF.
PERF is a private but extremely influential national, non-governmental organization with close ties to law enforcement agencies across the country, as well as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The group allegedly orchestrated and coordinated the sometimes brutal police crack down on Occupy Wall Street, and other Occupy movements across the country.
After offering a flat denial of coordinating police activity, the announcement goes on to admit that “PERF conducted two conference calls” with metropolitan police chiefs across the country concerning police response to the Occupy movement. Rather than strengthening their denial, the admission that PERT was conducting conference calls only strengthens the case that PERT was involved in advising and coordinating the police crackdown on the Occupy movement. Source
I truly don't understand the mentality of these people that think that DDOSing and hacking solves any of these problems.
|
On November 21 2011 15:27 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 14:20 sermokala wrote:On November 21 2011 11:32 Expurgate wrote:On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions. The point being made is that a constitutional right is supposed to override statutory law. Thats the real misconception that I see in this thread. The constitution isn't the rule of law in the land. Statutory law is. You can challenge and sue the city and accuse that the law conflicts with a constitutional right and win. You can't claim a constitutional right in a court when your charged with a crime and win. Quite simply you can't have a society based on even the best principles. You must have specific law and not vague points. Sure. My phrasing wasn't very good. Constitutionally defined rights and responsibilities are supposed to be the basis of statutory law though, and where statutory law conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins out. There is a substantial division right now between those who see peaceful protest as protected no matter what under the Constitution, and those who see it as a statutory matter.
but this is another one of those tricky case's of conflicts in the constitutional rights of different people. Just like you can't protest the airlines by yelling bomb or factories by yelling fire. The constitution doesn't "win out" because the constitution is a set of prevailing rules for laws. The laws in that case would simply cease to exist.
And you're completely wrong with your statement. you have delusional people who think that "peaceful protest" is free speech despite it conflicting with other constitutional rights. the constitution demands free speech not abusive or obstructive speech. you are free about what you say but not how you say it. People do stupid stuff to get media attention and then wonder why they get punished for it.
not saying that there isn't some alarming things going on on the law enforcement side but the constitutional violations by the ows can't be ignored piecemeal like they are by those within the movement and those that support it.
|
On November 21 2011 16:15 sermokala wrote:
but this is another one of those tricky case's of conflicts in the constitutional rights of different people. Just like you can't protest the airlines by yelling bomb or factories by yelling fire. The constitution doesn't "win out" because the constitution is a set of prevailing rules for laws. The laws in that case would simply cease to exist.
What constitutional rights are being infringed upon when people peaceably protest? The fact that you draw a connection between yelling 'Bomb' on an airplane, and peacefully gathering on the streets is quite ludicrous, and frankly baseless. And that's why judicial review exists at the highest levels: to mediate cases where statutory law conflicts with the Constitution.
And you're completely wrong with your statement. you have delusional people who think that "peaceful protest" is free speech despite it conflicting with other constitutional rights. the constitution demands free speech not abusive or obstructive speech. you are free about what you say but not how you say it. People do stupid stuff to get media attention and then wonder why they get punished for it.
not saying that there isn't some alarming things going on on the law enforcement side but the constitutional violations by the ows can't be ignored piecemeal like they are by those within the movement and those that support it.
Again, what constitutional rights are being infringed upon here? You don't have a constitutional right to have the streets free of people. You don't have a constitutional right to not view other people's signs.
Your whole argument here is not grounded in any kind of legal framework.
|
Don't indulge sermokala, nit picking at where they protest and how they protest when it's non violent is trying to dismiss and ignore arguments that they are trying to bring up. Just like people dismissed the tea party becuase they found a couple of hardcore racist to film or the idea that all of the tea party is funded by coke brother money, which it's actually quite a diverse group of small and large backers making up the big 5 tea party groups. This is just avoidance it's like when you gf asks if she looks fat and you talk about how great her top looks, it's besides the point.
|
On November 21 2011 16:20 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 16:15 sermokala wrote:
but this is another one of those tricky case's of conflicts in the constitutional rights of different people. Just like you can't protest the airlines by yelling bomb or factories by yelling fire. The constitution doesn't "win out" because the constitution is a set of prevailing rules for laws. The laws in that case would simply cease to exist. What constitutional rights are being infringed upon when people peaceably protest? The fact that you draw a connection between yelling 'Bomb' on an airplane, and peacefully gathering on the streets is quite ludicrous, and frankly baseless. And that's why judicial review exists at the highest levels: to mediate cases where statutory law conflicts with the Constitution. Show nested quote +And you're completely wrong with your statement. you have delusional people who think that "peaceful protest" is free speech despite it conflicting with other constitutional rights. the constitution demands free speech not abusive or obstructive speech. you are free about what you say but not how you say it. People do stupid stuff to get media attention and then wonder why they get punished for it.
not saying that there isn't some alarming things going on on the law enforcement side but the constitutional violations by the ows can't be ignored piecemeal like they are by those within the movement and those that support it. Again, what constitutional rights are being infringed upon here? You don't have a constitutional right to have the streets free of people. You don't have a constitutional right to not view other people's signs. Your whole argument here is not grounded in any kind of legal framework.
I'm not making a connection between the two I'm making an example on how the constitution must be applied to the law making process for the nation. you can't just directly apply the constitution to every day events and skip the middle man of the laws which was the point I was trying to get across.
The constitution presumes(ie demands from the people) lawfulness. It is the responsibility of the people dictated by the constitution to obey the laws. This is one of the civil duties that the founding fathers put into the constitution to avoid abuse's of the constitution by people trying to subvert the point of the constitution. There are laws regulating public assembly and protests to avoid disrupting the peace ie blocking roads (which are owned by the city and not the people) and other disruptive activities. The tea party did a fine job of following these laws and you never had police needing to crackdown on them. Anonymous follows these laws and did it very well during its protests against Scientology.
My arguments are grounded in the constitution and not just the bill of rights. A humorous point is that the side of the constitution that I'm coming from predates yours  .
|
On November 21 2011 16:40 semantics wrote:
Don't indulge sermokala, nit picking at where they protest and how they protest when it's non violent is trying to dismiss and ignore arguments that they are trying to bring up. Just like people dismissed the tea party becuase they found a couple of hardcore racist to film or the idea that all of the tea party is funded by coke brother money, which it's actually quite a diverse group of small and large backers making up the big 5 tea party groups. This is just avoidance it's like when you gf asks if she looks fat and you talk about how great her top looks, it's besides the point.
really? you say how I'm ignoring the arguments that the ows is bringing up when we're having a discussion on where law should derive from and then you go on talking about the tea party that from my experience never had a problem with law enforcement.
You're wrongly accusing me of ignoring arguments while in the same post ignore my arguments while trying to straw man my arguments by comparing the osw to the tea party in the way that they where "dismiss and ignored" even though that has absolutely no connection to what me and ex are talking about.
|
the constitution was built on the platform to protect property rights with the first half of it setting up a government to protect such property which is why you have the bill of rights tagged on to the end of it which are part of the constitution they are amendments to it and thus part of it, it was also built on a platform for it to be changed and updated with the times, and considering the last amendment passed was in 1992?/4? and it was an amendment proposed in 1776 i find that, the constitution as a document to reflect the people under it no longer holds. The constitution says nothing about lawfulness, there is actually quite a bit of digression in enforcing laws, the only civil duty that was mean for the majority of people was the idea of participation in your democracy and the idea of egalitarian elite who were not born elite but became elite would be drawn to government. The idea that you can silence the right of people to gather in order to protest against their government is exactly what the 1st amendment was drafter for that no government should be allowed to silence it's people for speaking out against it. Although historically the US government bent this in the name of national security, they never bent it in terms of omg people are camping in a publicly open facility and some are hobos!
Your argument has nothing to do with the constitution except that the word law could be used to describe both.
|
On November 21 2011 16:41 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 16:20 Expurgate wrote:On November 21 2011 16:15 sermokala wrote:
but this is another one of those tricky case's of conflicts in the constitutional rights of different people. Just like you can't protest the airlines by yelling bomb or factories by yelling fire. The constitution doesn't "win out" because the constitution is a set of prevailing rules for laws. The laws in that case would simply cease to exist. What constitutional rights are being infringed upon when people peaceably protest? The fact that you draw a connection between yelling 'Bomb' on an airplane, and peacefully gathering on the streets is quite ludicrous, and frankly baseless. And that's why judicial review exists at the highest levels: to mediate cases where statutory law conflicts with the Constitution. And you're completely wrong with your statement. you have delusional people who think that "peaceful protest" is free speech despite it conflicting with other constitutional rights. the constitution demands free speech not abusive or obstructive speech. you are free about what you say but not how you say it. People do stupid stuff to get media attention and then wonder why they get punished for it.
not saying that there isn't some alarming things going on on the law enforcement side but the constitutional violations by the ows can't be ignored piecemeal like they are by those within the movement and those that support it. Again, what constitutional rights are being infringed upon here? You don't have a constitutional right to have the streets free of people. You don't have a constitutional right to not view other people's signs. Your whole argument here is not grounded in any kind of legal framework. I'm not making a connection between the two I'm making an example on how the constitution must be applied to the law making process for the nation. you can't just directly apply the constitution to every day events and skip the middle man of the laws which was the point I was trying to get across.
Ok, I see. That's a fair point, but it behooves us to remember that the Constitution is meant to be the basis for the powers of government. That becomes relevant when a law may be unconstitutional. I am, of course, not suggesting that we ignore all laws.
The purpose of the Constitution is not to govern the conduct of the people, per se, but to govern the conduct of government.
The constitution presumes(ie demands from the people) lawfulness. It is the responsibility of the people dictated by the constitution to obey the laws. This is one of the civil duties that the founding fathers put into the constitution to avoid abuse's of the constitution by people trying to subvert the point of the constitution. There are laws regulating public assembly and protests to avoid disrupting the peace ie blocking roads (which are owned by the city and not the people) and other disruptive activities. The tea party did a fine job of following these laws and you never had police needing to crackdown on them. Anonymous follows these laws and did it very well during its protests against Scientology.
...Of course the Constitution presumes lawfulness. It would be absolutely meaningless if it didn't have at least some expectation of lawful behavior. However, the Constitution, as the "charter" for government, is meant to define the rights and responsibilities of government, not people.
You conveniently ignored the questions of my last post: what constitutional rights are protesters infringing upon? The correct answer is none. They are breaking statutory law, but they are not infringing upon the constitutional rights of others (at least so long as they don't deprive others of property, free speech, etc.)
Since protesters are not infringing upon the constitutional rights of others, the challenge (at least as applied to First Amendment protected free speech) is to show that protesters pose "a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." That's a quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in the case Schenk v. United States that has set precedent for most free speech regulation.
EDIT: At the very least, constitutional law has ample precedent to suggest that restrictions on political speech are extremely suspect, and are held to very high standards.
My arguments are grounded in the constitution and not just the bill of rights. A humorous point is that the side of the constitution that I'm coming from predates yours .
This blows my mind. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. Both parts are equally valid and applicable in law. The question of 'which came first' is not remotely relevant to the issue at hand.
You clearly do not know what you're talking about.
|
On November 21 2011 16:54 semantics wrote:
the constitution was built on the platform to protect property rights which is why you have the bill of rights tagged on to the end of it, it was also built on a platform for it to be changed and updated with the times, and considering the last amendment passed was in 1992?/4? and it was an amendment proposed in 1776 i find that, the constitution as a document to reflect the people under it no longer holds. The constitution says nothing about lawfulness, there is actually quite a bit of digression in enforcing laws, the only civil duty that was mean for the majority of people was the idea of participation in your democracy and the idea of egalitarian elite who were not born elite but became elite would be drawn to government. The idea that you can silence the right of people to gather in order to protest against their government is exactly what the 1st amendment was drafter for that no government should be allowed to silence it's people for speaking out against it. Although historically the US government bent this in the name of national security, they never bent it in terms of omg people are camping and some are hobos!
Your argument has nothing to do with the constitution except that the word law could be used to describe both.
Alright I'm just going to clearly state my argument because clearly you still are not understanding it.
1.A functioning society cannot apply the doctrine dictated by the constitution to everyday life. Law must be applied to everyday life and the constitution must be applied to the laws.
2. The First amendment dictates the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly. There 2 rights do not translate to the right to protest in a disruptive, but peaceful matter.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.
We get a larger disconnect with the idea of a state constitution and while the federal system remains its sovereign the states are allowed to have their own laws dictating things that are not addressed at said federal system. This is where I feel that most of the problems come from. without a nationwide policy on the right to protest even in the face of laws preventing the behavior exhibited in said protests its simply unreasonable to assume that the ones that must enforce the law should have all these problems thrown onto their shoulders.
This is also not assuming even more local governments that have a direct impact on the laws that the police must enforce as part of their job. this ignorance by people to blame the ones at the end of the chain is what frustrates me and must be addressed. The city council and state governments are the ones that should be getting the hate for what goes wrong but because the cops are the ones out in the field they get all the heat. Can you at least understand in that light that hating on the police is pointless and counter productive for any progress in our nation?
Now onto ex. (I checked to see if you posted yet before I clicked post) we agree now what the constitution does ( I had belied that It was about what what the government could and couldn't do and some other stuff but the conduct of government is better and I give that point) It saddens me how you ended your post considering I clearly said it was a humorous point and not stupid way of saying that my point was better on where the different things where written on the constitution. Its getting late so I hope you forgive me but I honestly don't believe the crap that is that all these people are "peaceful protesting" they're trying to have their cake and eat it too by assuming the right to free speech and assembly but completely ignoring the conduct that they choice to exersize these rights.
Domestic tranquility. translated into modern speaking that is keeping the peace and preventing the disruption of everyone's everyday business. This is the constitutional right that the people are infringing on. Sorry for going over that for a while.
|
On November 21 2011 17:50 sermokala wrote:
Now onto ex. (I checked to see if you posted yet before I clicked post) we agree now what the constitution does ( I had belied that It was about what what the government could and couldn't do and some other stuff but the conduct of government is better and I give that point) It saddens me how you ended your post considering I clearly said it was a humorous point and not stupid way of saying that my point was better on where the different things where written on the constitution. Its getting late so I hope you forgive me but I honestly don't believe the crap that is that all these people are "peaceful protesting" they're trying to have their cake and eat it too by assuming the right to free speech and assembly but completely ignoring the conduct that they choice to exersize these rights.
Domestic tranquility. translated into modern speaking that is keeping the peace and preventing the disruption of everyone's everyday business. This is the constitutional right that the people are infringing on. Sorry for going over that for a while.
Ahh, I had assumed that your smiley face was condescending. Sorry, it's easy to lose sense of a person's tone online 
So where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to "domestic tranquility?" To the best of my knowledge, that phrase only crops up in the preamble, which is generally not held to be part of the legal function of the Constitution.
This is what I meant by my last post: I think you're reading a guarantee in the Constitution that is not there; namely, there is no explicit right in the Constitution to "not have your everyday business disrupted."
When protesters break windows, they are clearly violating constitutional rights of others: that is, the explicit right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
When protesters are merely obstructing a public thoroughfare, they are not clearly violating any constitutional rights of others. That's why this is such a controversial topic.
Thanks for remaining calm, even after I got aggressive in my last post
|
On November 21 2011 15:39 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 15:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Anonymous hacktivists assaulted PERF, the Police Executive Research Forum, by taking down their website and releasing the private information of Sherwin B. "Chuck" Wexler - Executive Director at PERF.
PERF is a private but extremely influential national, non-governmental organization with close ties to law enforcement agencies across the country, as well as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The group allegedly orchestrated and coordinated the sometimes brutal police crack down on Occupy Wall Street, and other Occupy movements across the country.
After offering a flat denial of coordinating police activity, the announcement goes on to admit that “PERF conducted two conference calls” with metropolitan police chiefs across the country concerning police response to the Occupy movement. Rather than strengthening their denial, the admission that PERT was conducting conference calls only strengthens the case that PERT was involved in advising and coordinating the police crackdown on the Occupy movement. Source I truly don't understand the mentality of these people that think that DDOSing and hacking solves any of these problems.
It got PERT to speak. Sounds like they accomplished something. From flat out denial to a 'ya we spoke with police on this issue' is quite a change of stance
|
On November 21 2011 18:07 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 17:50 sermokala wrote:
Now onto ex. (I checked to see if you posted yet before I clicked post) we agree now what the constitution does ( I had belied that It was about what what the government could and couldn't do and some other stuff but the conduct of government is better and I give that point) It saddens me how you ended your post considering I clearly said it was a humorous point and not stupid way of saying that my point was better on where the different things where written on the constitution. Its getting late so I hope you forgive me but I honestly don't believe the crap that is that all these people are "peaceful protesting" they're trying to have their cake and eat it too by assuming the right to free speech and assembly but completely ignoring the conduct that they choice to exersize these rights.
Domestic tranquility. translated into modern speaking that is keeping the peace and preventing the disruption of everyone's everyday business. This is the constitutional right that the people are infringing on. Sorry for going over that for a while.
Ahh, I had assumed that your smiley face was condescending. Sorry, it's easy to lose sense of a person's tone online So where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to "domestic tranquility?" To the best of my knowledge, that phrase only crops up in the preamble, which is generally not held to be part of the legal function of the Constitution. This is what I meant by my last post: I think you're reading a guarantee in the Constitution that is not there; namely, there is no explicit right in the Constitution to "not have your everyday business disrupted." When protesters break windows, they are clearly violating constitutional rights of others: that is, the explicit right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. When protesters are merely obstructing a public thoroughfare, they are not clearly violating any constitutional rights of others. That's why this is such a controversial topic. Thanks for remaining calm, even after I got aggressive in my last post
What definition would you assign to "liberty?"
At any rate, "freedom of movement" is widely considered to be a constitutional right, with the authority to protect it left to the states. As a private person, there are laws on the books to prevent you from obstructing the free movement of others. Don't block public thoroughfares, don't prevent individuals from exiting a venue (say a convention center), just don't do it.
|
On November 22 2011 04:07 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 18:07 Expurgate wrote:On November 21 2011 17:50 sermokala wrote:
Now onto ex. (I checked to see if you posted yet before I clicked post) we agree now what the constitution does ( I had belied that It was about what what the government could and couldn't do and some other stuff but the conduct of government is better and I give that point) It saddens me how you ended your post considering I clearly said it was a humorous point and not stupid way of saying that my point was better on where the different things where written on the constitution. Its getting late so I hope you forgive me but I honestly don't believe the crap that is that all these people are "peaceful protesting" they're trying to have their cake and eat it too by assuming the right to free speech and assembly but completely ignoring the conduct that they choice to exersize these rights.
Domestic tranquility. translated into modern speaking that is keeping the peace and preventing the disruption of everyone's everyday business. This is the constitutional right that the people are infringing on. Sorry for going over that for a while.
Ahh, I had assumed that your smiley face was condescending. Sorry, it's easy to lose sense of a person's tone online So where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to "domestic tranquility?" To the best of my knowledge, that phrase only crops up in the preamble, which is generally not held to be part of the legal function of the Constitution. This is what I meant by my last post: I think you're reading a guarantee in the Constitution that is not there; namely, there is no explicit right in the Constitution to "not have your everyday business disrupted." When protesters break windows, they are clearly violating constitutional rights of others: that is, the explicit right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. When protesters are merely obstructing a public thoroughfare, they are not clearly violating any constitutional rights of others. That's why this is such a controversial topic. Thanks for remaining calm, even after I got aggressive in my last post What definition would you assign to "liberty?" At any rate, "freedom of movement" is widely considered to be a constitutional right, with the authority to protect it left to the states. As a private person, there are laws on the books to prevent you from obstructing the free movement of others. Don't block public thoroughfares, don't prevent individuals from exiting a venue (say a convention center), just don't do it.
didn't realize that protesters were keeping people imprisoned inside a structure to which your reference is about which is different from blocking an entrance into something. You're talking about people holding people against their will which is the difference between people entering a place and people exiting a place.
|
On November 21 2011 14:20 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:32 Expurgate wrote:On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions. The point being made is that a constitutional right is supposed to override statutory law. Thats the real misconception that I see in this thread. The constitution isn't the rule of law in the land. Statutory law is. You can challenge and sue the city and accuse that the law conflicts with a constitutional right and win. You can't claim a constitutional right in a court when your charged with a crime and win. Quite simply you can't have a society based on even the best principles. You must have specific law and not vague points.
Actually you can claim a constitutional right when you are charged with a crime and win... That's how it is done. You think X law is unconstitutional, you violate X law, get arrested and then keep appealing until it reaches the Supreme Court.
Also, blocking people's movement in or out of a public place is the same as "holding" them for all practical purposes. So protesters that are blocking access are violating liberty. And in so far as 'parks' etc. are government/private property then certain actions on them violate the right to property of the owning entity.
The response was excessive, but that doesn't mean some response was not a proper thing to do.
|
On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 08:24 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 07:29 Ungrateful wrote:On November 21 2011 07:08 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 02:50 Antares777 wrote:On November 21 2011 02:35 seppolevne wrote:
A bunch of narcissists? I'm pretty sure it's a group of people that have realised that your country is a fucking hellhole and want to change it for the better, to make everyone a little better off. That sounds like the opposite of narcissism, actually.
edit: Are you fucking serious?
"characterized by a lack of empathy, a willingness to exploit others, and an inflated sense of self-importance"
is pretty much exactly why all these people are fucked, and THEY are the narcissists? What the fuck goes on in your brain? A fucking hellhole? What? They do not want to change it for the better more than they want to change it for themselves. That sounds like a bunch of narcissists to me. The OWS movement allows a lot of self-centered people to go complain about what they want to be changed. There are people that want marijuana to be legalized and are protesting that law, there are people who want student loans to be changed in some way that benefits them, and then you got people who are just protesting capitalism. There are people that want to change things for the greater good, but they are the minority. OWS needs to get their shit together, or stop protesting and go home. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from fox news? Because you're totally wrong. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from The New York Times? Because you're totally wrong. (See what I did there?) I am personally involved. My point stands. How am I totally wrong? From my point of view the protestors are shed in a bad light. Is there something that I'm not understanding? I am aware that a lot of them are against lobbying and want that to stop. To clarify, I am 100% against lobbying, but the OWS movement is mixed and mashed with every individuals opinion. And I may be wrong about this as well, but aren't they occupying parks overnight, which is illegal? I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions.
You are wrong because you call the movement a place for self-centered people to complain about what they want. You try to take away credit and focus from the main points by claiming people want marijuana legalized and by saying they are protesting capitalism.
According to you those who protest for the greater good are the minority, which is not true. They are the majority, and you can clearly see this if you talk to them. Those who you call anti capitalism come from two groups: 1. the communist party people who try to profit from those protest (only a small amount of people, maybe 500 in total?) and 2. those who are not complaining about capitalism directly, but about how some people abuse it. The issue is seeing money as a goal. If we look at corporations and people, some of them would dump dangerous chemicals, disregard safety, stop thinking ahead, use old and outdated technology, or simply scam the people and/or take over the democracy. This is what we protest against. This is not the way, and protesting against this is called "anti capitalism" by fox news and a bunch of uninformed people.
The main point is, we're saying capitalism right now is not working because many people have been made to believe that it works perfectly and that we all need to strive to earn an infinite amount of money, when money earning is clearly not aligning with important things in many cases. The (wall street) bankers earned a lot of money... by ripping off the people (still happening... it's called debt slavery). Companies dumping chemicals save money, lobbyists destroying democracy earn money because regulations are removed. Capitalism, in it's current state is a horrible horrible system because it is abused by many people. Sadly, the people who really do the abusing are just a tiny group, and nearly all the others work as tiny parts of the machines, most of them not even realizing how bad things really are.
tl;dr: Capitalism doesn't have to be bad but the current state of it is, combined with a bunch of people who use money as a goal instead of a tool, which leads to bad things happening such as people having no food, us not managing the resources we have on earth in a realistic way, wars, fake democracy (politicians bought by lobbyists), destruction and many other bad things. The protests really are about making people wake up and spreading this truth which will improve the situation. Complaining that occupying a park is illegal is extremely hypocritical if you compare it to for example, the many forms of crime such as fraud and destruction committed by many of the banksters, banks, politicians, corporations and individuals.
|
On November 22 2011 05:08 H0i wrote:
tl;dr: Capitalism doesn't have to be bad but the current state of it is, combined with a bunch of people who use money as a goal instead of a tool, which leads to bad things happening such as people having no food, us not managing the resources we have on earth in a realistic way, wars, fake democracy (politicians bought by lobbyists), destruction and many other bad things. The protests really are about making people wake up and spreading this truth which will improve the situation. Complaining that occupying a park is illegal is extremely hypocritical if you compare it to for example, the many forms of crime such as fraud and destruction committed by many of the banksters, banks, politicians, corporations and individuals.
I don't think that "hypocritical" means what you think it means.
Also, money is seldom the goal. Money is only as useful as what you can purchase with it, in that sense money is absolutely a tool.
The protesters make a lot of points, some good, some bad, but their methods are suspect and their message is dilute.
EDIT - Also the US isn't and has never been a Democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ufiDL.jpg)
