271 replies to this topic

[Dark.Matter]

BUT ZALZ DATS CUZ US GOV IS NAZI COMMUNIST FASCISTS. KKKUSA NO COPS.

[Fin]

The whole permit for protesting thing is a relatively new situation for the USA. The fact that it is now required is a farce. Our Constitution is clear about this, and let me show you again: "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."

I would like to point out that while goverment cant stop you from protesting, but according to current law the government can impose "time, place and
manner" restrictions on speech by requiring permits. These restrictions are generally permissible as long as they are reasonable and not based on content. The government cannot impose permit restrictions simply because it does not like the message of a certain speaker or group.

Secondly, if the government has to approve the protest in the first place, that means also that they can deny it as well. If you are denying an opinion to be expressed, then there is no longer true freedom of speech.

Slippery slope.

Somehow rest of the western world has managed to allow freedom of speech (some times even having greater freedom of speech then USA it self) while at the same time requiring permits. For example in Finland permits are not a required because it gives goverment the ability to stamp out all "unwanted" people, its there so that police can provide security for the event, and possibly block roads, so that protestors dont have to zig zag their way in to their final destination.

The people did not decide to enact a law requiring permits either, another glaring issue with the whole debacle.

Well you did elect your congress, who in return accepted the law for you. Thats how your goverment works. It may not be ideal, but it sure as hell beats pure democrazy.

In the general sense, the people in fact did break the law. You are right about that if you believe that the people are to uphold laws they did not vote for, or thusly enact. However, if you believe the Constitution is above all other laws, then the people did nothing more than act like any American should. You were at least at one point in this country (until our government started making laws without our consent) allowed to protest in whatever numbers you chose next to world leaders. That's not opinion Fin, that's fact.

According to ACLU's "Right to Protest" brochure, Freedom of speech ends at the moment person refuses to follow lawful orders from police.

Now as the rallys in question where Illegal, police officers orders to leave the are were lawful, which the protestors refused to obey.... Which means that they no longer had their 1st amendment to protect them.

You can read the Brochure here, intresting stuff for a foreigner like me. http://www.aclufl.or...st_brochure.pdf

Edited by Fin, 29 September 2009 - 12:17 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

The whole permit for protesting thing is a relatively new situation for the USA. The fact that it is now required is a farce. Our Constitution is clear about this, and let me show you again: "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." If the government now requires a permit, which has to be purchased and also approved, they have indeed abridged that right. Not everyone in this country that has an opinion on something that they feel the need to protest has money first of all. Secondly, if the government has to approve the protest in the first place, that means also that they can deny it as well. If you are denying an opinion to be expressed, then there is no longer true freedom of speech. The people did not decide to enact a law requiring permits either, another glaring issue with the whole debacle.

In the general sense, the people in fact did break the law. You are right about that if you believe that the people are to uphold laws they did not vote for, or thusly enact. However, if you believe the Constitution is above all other laws, then the people did nothing more than act like any American should. You were at least at one point in this country (until our government started making laws without our consent) allowed to protest in whatever numbers you chose next to world leaders. That's not opinion Fin, that's fact.

http://answers.yahoo...21233932AAtT0Fm
Best answer I've seen:

The freedom of assembly in order to protest sometimes conflicts with laws intended to protect public safety, even in democratic countries: in many cities, the police are authorized by law to disperse any crowd (including a crowd of political protesters) which threatens public safety, or which the police cannot control. The idea is to prevent rioting. Often local law requires that a permit must be obtained in advance by protest organizers in order to prepare emergency services and response.
The government may, however, impose reasonable limitations upon the time, place, and manner in which speech is exercised in order to protect public order and the smooth functioning of public administration. In imposing such restrictions, however, the state may not discriminate on the basis of the content of speech since such limitations would permit the state to favor one type of speech over another. Narrow exceptions are drawn for special categories of speech, particularly obscenity and so‐called “fighting words,” which could lead to public disturbances. Even in these categories, the Court has gradually expanded the scope of judicial scrutiny. For example, hecklers are generally not permitted to exert a “veto” over speech by creating a threat of violence and disorder; the state is obligated to protect, not stop, the controversial speaker.

tl;dr:
You need a permit so you don't impede the functioning of the rest of the people living in the area or emergency services or put other people in the area in danger. States are not allowed to discriminate on the content of a protest when giving out permits.

Pretty much, if you ask for a permit, and you give them all the info they need (number of people expected, time of protest, and location of protest) so they can plan to work around it, you will get a permit.

[Javea1]

Sources. Prove it.

And no, Youtube comments dont count as "source".

http://www.youtube.c...re=channel_page It's in one of those five videos (don't remember which one).

Also, I'll just leave this here.

Edited by Javea1, 29 September 2009 - 02:27 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

http://www.youtube.c...re=channel_page

It's in one of those five videos.

Alex Jones Law: Any argument supported by anything talked about on Alex Jones' show, or supported by Alex Jones is false.

Really dude. you should write a book about how to lose support for your argument. I wish I were being sarcastic.

[Javea1]

Alex Jones Law: Any argument supported by anything talked about on Alex Jones' show, or supported by Alex Jones is false.

Really dude. you should write a book about how to lose support for your argument. I wish I were being sarcastic.

Way to ad hominem.

Edited by Javea1, 29 September 2009 - 02:38 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

Way to ad hominem.

I'd tear down everything he says, but he talks faster than I can listen. It's like trying to clean up a dump with a toothpick. Even if what you're doing is right, you're still going to be buried in shit.

[Javea1]

I'd tear down everything he says, but he talks faster than I can listen. It's like trying to clean up a dump with a toothpick. Even if what you're doing is right, you're still going to be buried in shit.

I'm waiting.

Also:

Edited by Javea1, 29 September 2009 - 02:47 PM.

[TheShadowNinja]

Way to ad hominem.

It's not ad hominem to refuse to accept information from biased sources like Alex Jones or youtube videos that selectively provide a single side to the story.

But go ahead and keep posting Alex Jones youtube videos, it's just not helping.

[Javea1]

It's not ad hominem to refuse to accept information from biased sources like Alex Jones or youtube videos that selectively provide a single side to the story.

But go ahead and keep posting Alex Jones youtube videos, it's just not helping.

Luke was calling in as a guest on the show. Unless you're claiming that Luke is lying, the segment I posted has nothing to do with Alex Jones being biased.

Also, WeAreChange was never associated with violence. They're a peaceful group.

http://www.youtube.c...re=channel_page

Edited by Javea1, 29 September 2009 - 03:28 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

Also, WeAreChange was never associated with violence till now.

fixed

[zalzaron]

THE BANKERS HAVE GIVEN US UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!!

Alex Jones is one of the worlds biggest idiots and the only ones that don't see that are the blind and biased idiots that are on his side of the fence and refuse to see anything but their own claims.


You see i might have an opinion but i don't hold that opinion as divine. I do not believe i have found the ultimate truth. If i found a person agreeing with my points but acting like this loose cannon Alex Jones, well i would yell them out and be critical of them.

Just because someone shares my opinion does not mean i therefore always agree with said people. You lot however just want to know if someone is on your side of the fence, after that it's carte blanche and that person can say whatever the fuck he wants, not like you give a shit anymore.

Have some self-reflection and see what an idiot Alex Jones is. Nobody should be agreeing with this nutjob, citing this moron as a "source" is just beyond retarded. Im really glad from the bottom of my heart that freaks like Alex Jones have a radio show and don't have a position of power because the damage those kind of sicko's could do is worse then i dare even imagine.

[techno-ninja]

it's pretty amazing that 'passive resistance' almost always ends in riots/looting/police brutality, the psychocolategy behind it is almost so glaringly obvious that it is painful to see people lather rinse repeat.


I can't really give a decent opinion on what really sparked off the drama as i am only able to see it from a biased media. It's also quite interesting how Nazi Germany has been mentioned a few times in this thread- seeing as though most of the journalists/news teams reporting this would have gotten most of their tricks from Mr. Goebbels.

[zalzaron]

it's pretty amazing that 'passive resistance' almost always ends in riots/looting/police brutality, the psychocolategy behind it is almost so glaringly obvious that it is painful to see people lather rinse repeat.


I can't really give a decent opinion on what really sparked off the drama as i am only able to see it from a biased media. It's also quite interesting how Nazi Germany has been mentioned a few times in this thread- seeing as though most of the journalists/news teams reporting this would have gotten most of their tricks from Mr. Goebbels.

It's sad to see how the tragedies of the 2nd world war have become little more then amusing jokes and comparisons in the eyes of people like this. People like this really make you wonder if people are ever gonna learn from the past.

[Dohregard]

I really don't thing beating people and tazing them helped out any, but a permit isn't hard to get from what I hear.

[The Colonel]

Also, I'll just leave this here.

"When protesters showed up to fight the New World Order at G20, martial law was declared"

Really? Really?

[TheShadowNinja]

it's pretty amazing that 'passive resistance' almost always ends in riots/looting/police brutality, the psychocolategy behind it is almost so glaringly obvious that it is painful to see people lather rinse repeat.

Okay, seriously, what the fuck?

Can someone please remove this dumbass word filter?
Or is this some kind of inside joke I'm not in on?

Edited by TheShadowNinja, 29 September 2009 - 04:34 PM.

[Sir Kyle Aziz]

An for everyone whining about people with permits being forced to leave.

Ever hear that "One person ruins a good thing for everyone else"? Or something to that effect?

That's why people were being kicked out. Just because SOME people can't act like fucking civil human beings. THat means, for the saftey of the public, saftey of the peoples property and saftey of the G20 leaders. (Had to bold it for you kids who have downs syndrome and can't understand that this topic shouldn't even be discussed anymore.) That there should be NO ONE on the streets.


Some retarded fucking anarchists who would end up the bitch of some guy if anarchy did actually take place think they're fuckin cool beans throwing bricks and dumpsters and everything else at police because FUCK DA POH-LEASE. They're the ones you should be whining and complaining about. They're the ones who ruined the protesting for EVERYONE. Not some power tripping neo nazi cops. (Who are within their rights to subdue unco-operative persons by less lethal means. I.E. Taser, I.E. Tear Gas)


So please, just fuckin read that, understand it. This isn't about nazi's or police brutality. It's about common sense. The saftey of the public is more important then a protest.

[Emotive]

So please, just fuckin read that, understand it. This isn't about nazi's or police brutality. It's about common sense. The saftey of the public is more important then a protest.

someone still doesn't get it and says how unconstitutional it was and how we're becoming/already are slaves.

ten bucks.

[Patchy]

Lol @ Youtube links for a source (and before you get worked up, yeah, I watched them - protestors QQ'ing because they got owned by the police). I wish I could link youtube videos for my assignments in Uni. Really, it would be sweet. But I can't.