I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
jschell wrote:
Because they knew that they were breaking a law.
Only thing you can know for sure is that they were prepared to be arrested.
jschell wrote:
They knew that they would be arrested for breaking that law - it had nothing to do with free speech.
It has everything to do with free speech. You seem to be so sure that they broke some law, and yet you have no idea what the law is.
jschell wrote:
Again the actions of those individuals and that specific time was specifically intended to knowingly break a law.
No, only thing we know for sure is that they intended to be arrested. They were told to leave and they chose not to.
jschell wrote:
Per your analogy if vegan stands outside a bank and demands that they stop accepting money from a meat packer then it is ok if they then blow up the bank.
Actually that makes no sense at all. Free speech is protected, blowing up banks is not. For the sake of argument I will accept the hypothetical that the protesters knowingly broke a law that would withstand a 1st amendment constitutional challenge. That does not in any way minimize that the focus of the gathering was to protest the vast inequality in this country. It does not justify the use of pepper spray. My position is that the quad on the campus of UC-Davis is public property. The few exceptions that the courts have allowed do not apply, so what the students were doing was legal. In addition, irrespective of the legality of the protests, this was an unforced error by the school chancellor, the campus police chief and the police Lt. that lead the officers. It was a stupid and violent overreaction. The chancellor should be fired, and the there should be a criminal investigation of the police.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
You seem to be so sure that they broke some law, and yet you have no idea what the law is
Wrong. I am sure that they knew what the law was. It has nothing to do with my legal opinion.
Majerus wrote:
No, only thing we know for sure is that they intended to be arrested. They were told to leave and they chose not to.
Which is irrelevant. There is a law. They broke it. Period.
Majerus wrote:
Actually that makes no sense at all. Free speech is protected, blowing up banks is not
They were not arrested for what they were saying. They were arrested for what they were doing. You are the one ignoring the law that was being broken and which they knew they were breaking.
Majerus wrote:
That does not in any way minimize that the focus of the gathering was to protest the vast inequality in this country. It does not justify the use of pepper spray.
Nonsense. Second has nothing to do with the first.
Majerus wrote:
My position is that the quad on the campus of UC-Davis is public property.
My position is that I seriously doubt that. Most of the Occupy protesters around the country at located in areas that are restricted use locations. The fact that people think that means that there are no restrictions is meaningless because most people use those areas within the restrictions. Most state property is owned by the state and most such property has use restrictions. Just as the court house, which is owned by the state, is closed and locked at night. The fact that the state owns it doesn't give you nor anyone else the right to camp out there. And free speech does NOT trump that restriction.
Majerus wrote:
In addition, irrespective of the legality of the protests, this was an unforced error by the school chancellor, the campus police chief and the police Lt. that lead the officers. It was a stupid and violent overreaction. The chancellor should be fired, and the there should be a criminal investigation of the police.
Myself I like to actually examine all of the evidence rather than making knee jerk emotional reactions based on sparse information. Especially when that evidence exists solely t
-
Majerus wrote:
ow so? In what way are they different? In what way is the 1st amendment NOT applicable?
Restricted use requirements. I do not not need a permit to stand on a sidewalk with a sign at 3 in the morning on a downtown sidewalk. I do need a permit for all of the other places I mentioned. And the above has NOTHING to do with what is on my sign. Could be "Jesus saves", could be "Socialism rules" could be "Big Sale at Barneys".
jschell wrote:
Restricted use requirements.
"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." The amendment is clear. The first amendment trumps "restricted use".
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
It doesn't matter what your definition is. The only definition that matters in the legal definition.
I suggest you re-read what I said. I was quite clear in that I was talking about me.
Perhaps it's you that needs to reread.
Majerus wrote:
It doesn't matter what your definition is. The only definition that matters in the legal definition.
Note the portion highlighted.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
You seem to be so sure that they broke some law, and yet you have no idea what the law is
Wrong. I am sure that they knew what the law was. It has nothing to do with my legal opinion.
Majerus wrote:
No, only thing we know for sure is that they intended to be arrested. They were told to leave and they chose not to.
Which is irrelevant. There is a law. They broke it. Period.
Majerus wrote:
Actually that makes no sense at all. Free speech is protected, blowing up banks is not
They were not arrested for what they were saying. They were arrested for what they were doing. You are the one ignoring the law that was being broken and which they knew they were breaking.
Majerus wrote:
That does not in any way minimize that the focus of the gathering was to protest the vast inequality in this country. It does not justify the use of pepper spray.
Nonsense. Second has nothing to do with the first.
Majerus wrote:
My position is that the quad on the campus of UC-Davis is public property.
My position is that I seriously doubt that. Most of the Occupy protesters around the country at located in areas that are restricted use locations. The fact that people think that means that there are no restrictions is meaningless because most people use those areas within the restrictions. Most state property is owned by the state and most such property has use restrictions. Just as the court house, which is owned by the state, is closed and locked at night. The fact that the state owns it doesn't give you nor anyone else the right to camp out there. And free speech does NOT trump that restriction.
Majerus wrote:
In addition, irrespective of the legality of the protests, this was an unforced error by the school chancellor, the campus police chief and the police Lt. that lead the officers. It was a stupid and violent overreaction. The chancellor should be fired, and the there should be a criminal investigation of the police.
Myself I like to actually examine all of the evidence rather than making knee jerk emotional reactions based on sparse information. Especially when that evidence exists solely t
jschell wrote:
Myself I like to actually examine all of the evidence
And yet you haven't bothered to do that. If you had you would know what law they broke. I know of at one that was used as the excuse for the school's foolish over-reaction. Why don't you know this?
jschell wrote:
Majerus wrote:
My position is that the quad on the campus of UC-Davis is public property.
My position is that I seriously doubt that.
jschell wrote:
Most state property is owned by the state
I hate to be snarky, but what state property is NOT owned by the state? And here is a definition of public property: "public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public"
jschell wrote:
And free speech does NOT trump that restriction.
Actually, it does.
jschell wrote:
I would still like to know what you do think is acceptable for the removal of someone that does not want to be removed.
The least violent method. Pepper spray, as I have already said, is not justifiable.
jschell wrote:
If someone has chained themselves to a post in your living room
Again with the private property. Not relevant. Read about the "black bears" and how the courts found that pepper spray was not justifiable.[^] As you will see, what the protester used was much more difficult to deal with than chains, and yet the police dealt with it many, many times without the use of pepper spray. When they did use spray, the court found that the use was not justified.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
Myself I like to actually examine all of the evidence
And yet you haven't bothered to do that. If you had you would know what law they broke. I know of at one that was used as the excuse for the school's foolish over-reaction. Why don't you know this?
jschell wrote:
Majerus wrote:
My position is that the quad on the campus of UC-Davis is public property.
My position is that I seriously doubt that.
jschell wrote:
Most state property is owned by the state
I hate to be snarky, but what state property is NOT owned by the state? And here is a definition of public property: "public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public"
jschell wrote:
And free speech does NOT trump that restriction.
Actually, it does.
jschell wrote:
I would still like to know what you do think is acceptable for the removal of someone that does not want to be removed.
The least violent method. Pepper spray, as I have already said, is not justifiable.
jschell wrote:
If someone has chained themselves to a post in your living room
Again with the private property. Not relevant. Read about the "black bears" and how the courts found that pepper spray was not justifiable.[^] As you will see, what the protester used was much more difficult to deal with than chains, and yet the police dealt with it many, many times without the use of pepper spray. When they did use spray, the court found that the use was not justified.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Actually, it does.
No it doesn't. Thousands and probably tens of thousands of arrests over the years prove that.
Majerus wrote:
The least violent method.
Which means you don't know of one. The next most likely one is certain holds specifically intended to product pain which can lead to broken bones in the protester and injuries to the officers. There is a reason that officers are trained to use methods that do have the potential to lead to injury. And you might find it a learning experience to try to get someone to move when they intend to not move. There is no technique that does not carry risk.
Majerus wrote:
gain with the private property. Not relevant.
Very relevant - you are claiming that free speech trumps everything.
Majerus wrote:
As you will see, what the protester used was much more difficult to deal with than chains, and yet the police dealt with it many, many times without the use of pepper spray. When they did use spray, the court found that the use was not justified.
Nonsense. That doesn't make pepper spray illegal. That case was specifically based on the case itself and moreover was specifically related to the specifics of the various suits might proceed (or not) based on the the evidence of that case. And either you are attempting to gloss over the facts of that case or didn't even bother reading them since they are completely different. Not to mention that even that case wasn't about pepper spray itself but rather in how it was used.
-
Perhaps it's you that needs to reread.
Majerus wrote:
It doesn't matter what your definition is. The only definition that matters in the legal definition.
Note the portion highlighted.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Note the portion highlighted.
I see so it is perfectly ok for you to express your personal opinion as stated in the following... "...sounds passive to me." And then from that follow up with the conclusion (I can only suppose) that your opinion is a legal one.
-
jschell wrote:
Restricted use requirements.
"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." The amendment is clear. The first amendment trumps "restricted use".
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
Actually, it does.
No it doesn't. Thousands and probably tens of thousands of arrests over the years prove that.
Majerus wrote:
The least violent method.
Which means you don't know of one. The next most likely one is certain holds specifically intended to product pain which can lead to broken bones in the protester and injuries to the officers. There is a reason that officers are trained to use methods that do have the potential to lead to injury. And you might find it a learning experience to try to get someone to move when they intend to not move. There is no technique that does not carry risk.
Majerus wrote:
gain with the private property. Not relevant.
Very relevant - you are claiming that free speech trumps everything.
Majerus wrote:
As you will see, what the protester used was much more difficult to deal with than chains, and yet the police dealt with it many, many times without the use of pepper spray. When they did use spray, the court found that the use was not justified.
Nonsense. That doesn't make pepper spray illegal. That case was specifically based on the case itself and moreover was specifically related to the specifics of the various suits might proceed (or not) based on the the evidence of that case. And either you are attempting to gloss over the facts of that case or didn't even bother reading them since they are completely different. Not to mention that even that case wasn't about pepper spray itself but rather in how it was used.
jschell wrote:
No it doesn't. Thousands and probably tens of thousands of arrests over the years prove that.
Incorrect. The text of the first amendment and the rulings of the supreme court define the limits.
jschell wrote:
Which means you don't know of one.
It's not my job. Nor is my failure to explicity describe the specific methods that the police can use for each and every scenario that you might devise an affirmation of the use of pepper spray.
jschell wrote:
The next most likely one is certain holds specifically intended to product pain which can lead to broken bones in the protester and injuries to the officers.
No, that doesn't follow. For just one example of protesters removed with out injury review the Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt case again. "Defendants asserted at trial that the protestors' use of “black bears” constituted “ ‘active’ resistance to arrest,' ” meriting the use of force. The Eureka Police Department defines “active resistance” as occurring when the “subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object.” 240 F.3d at 1202-3. Characterizing the protestors' activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case, viewing them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the protestors: the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances. Defendants' repeated use of pepper spray was also clearly unreasonable. As we recently concluded, the use of pepper spray “may be reasonable as a general policy to bring an arrestee under control, but in a situation in which an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use of the weapon or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.” LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir.2000) (emphasis supplied). Because the officers had control over the protestors it would have been clear to any reasonable officer that it was unnecessary to use pepper spray to bring them under cont
-
Majerus wrote:
Note the portion highlighted.
I see so it is perfectly ok for you to express your personal opinion as stated in the following... "...sounds passive to me." And then from that follow up with the conclusion (I can only suppose) that your opinion is a legal one.
-
Majerus wrote:
The amendment is clear. The first amendment trumps "restricted use".
You seriously need to learn more about the law. Or at least you need to be sure that you never try to assert your social activism in some way besides a forum.
jschell wrote:
You seriously need to learn more about the law.
Or at least you need to be sure that you never try to assert your social activism in some way besides a forum.That is funny!!! It is you that appears to have zero understanding of the meaning of the first amendment or the very limited exceptions carved out by the courts. Your extremely broad, unqualified claim that any and all "restricted use" of public property trump the first amendment is completely incorrect.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
No it doesn't. Thousands and probably tens of thousands of arrests over the years prove that.
Incorrect. The text of the first amendment and the rulings of the supreme court define the limits.
jschell wrote:
Which means you don't know of one.
It's not my job. Nor is my failure to explicity describe the specific methods that the police can use for each and every scenario that you might devise an affirmation of the use of pepper spray.
jschell wrote:
The next most likely one is certain holds specifically intended to product pain which can lead to broken bones in the protester and injuries to the officers.
No, that doesn't follow. For just one example of protesters removed with out injury review the Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt case again. "Defendants asserted at trial that the protestors' use of “black bears” constituted “ ‘active’ resistance to arrest,' ” meriting the use of force. The Eureka Police Department defines “active resistance” as occurring when the “subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object.” 240 F.3d at 1202-3. Characterizing the protestors' activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case, viewing them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the protestors: the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances. Defendants' repeated use of pepper spray was also clearly unreasonable. As we recently concluded, the use of pepper spray “may be reasonable as a general policy to bring an arrestee under control, but in a situation in which an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use of the weapon or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.” LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir.2000) (emphasis supplied). Because the officers had control over the protestors it would have been clear to any reasonable officer that it was unnecessary to use pepper spray to bring them under cont
Majerus wrote:
Incorrect. The text of the first amendment and the rulings of the supreme court define the limits.
So you are claiming that tens of thousands of protesters have not been arrested over the last 200 years for breaking laws?
Majerus wrote:
It's not my job. Nor is my failure to explicity describe the specific methods that the police can use for each and every scenario that you might devise an affirmation of the use of pepper spray.
It seems obvious to me that you would reject any method in this case.
Majerus wrote:
No, that doesn't follow.
Spin it anyway you want. It didn't make pepper spray illegal. Which should be obvious given that it is still used and still used against protesters who break the law.
Majerus wrote:
o, I haven't. All along I have been clear about the distinction between public and private property.
You however have no understanding of limited use restrictions.
Majerus wrote:
I haven't been arguing that pepper spray was illegal. ...it was determined that any use was unreasonable.
Sigh...you don't appear to know what you are arguing.
-
Well, no that wasn't just my personal opinion. I followed that statement with and extended excerpt and link to a case directly on point. Something that you did not do.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
You seriously need to learn more about the law.
Or at least you need to be sure that you never try to assert your social activism in some way besides a forum.That is funny!!! It is you that appears to have zero understanding of the meaning of the first amendment or the very limited exceptions carved out by the courts. Your extremely broad, unqualified claim that any and all "restricted use" of public property trump the first amendment is completely incorrect.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Your extremely broad, unqualified claim that any and all "restricted use" of public property trump the first amendment is completely incorrect.
Which would be valid if it had anything to do with what I said. What exactly do you not understand in the following statement? The protesters broke a law. They were arrested for breaking that law. They were not arrested for what they were saying. Free speech does not preempt other laws.
-
Majerus wrote:
Incorrect. The text of the first amendment and the rulings of the supreme court define the limits.
So you are claiming that tens of thousands of protesters have not been arrested over the last 200 years for breaking laws?
Majerus wrote:
It's not my job. Nor is my failure to explicity describe the specific methods that the police can use for each and every scenario that you might devise an affirmation of the use of pepper spray.
It seems obvious to me that you would reject any method in this case.
Majerus wrote:
No, that doesn't follow.
Spin it anyway you want. It didn't make pepper spray illegal. Which should be obvious given that it is still used and still used against protesters who break the law.
Majerus wrote:
o, I haven't. All along I have been clear about the distinction between public and private property.
You however have no understanding of limited use restrictions.
Majerus wrote:
I haven't been arguing that pepper spray was illegal. ...it was determined that any use was unreasonable.
Sigh...you don't appear to know what you are arguing.
jschell wrote:
So you are claiming that tens of thousands of protesters have not been arrested over the last 200 years for breaking laws?
Of course not. Arrests are not proof of anything other a policeman chose to arrest someone.
jschell wrote:
Spin it anyway you want. It didn't make pepper spray illegal.
For the 2nd time - I haven't argued that pepper spray is illegal.
jschell wrote:
You however have no understanding of limited use restrictions.
Of course I understand. I also understand that the 1st amendment is supreme. There are some exceptions carved out by the courts.
jschell wrote:
Sigh...you don't appear to know what you are arguing.
Don't expect me to be impressed. I provided a court case that is very much on point with what happened at UC-Davis. This court found the use of pepper spray unreasonable.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
Your extremely broad, unqualified claim that any and all "restricted use" of public property trump the first amendment is completely incorrect.
Which would be valid if it had anything to do with what I said. What exactly do you not understand in the following statement? The protesters broke a law. They were arrested for breaking that law. They were not arrested for what they were saying. Free speech does not preempt other laws.
jschell wrote:
What exactly do you not understand in the following statement?
The protesters broke a law. They were arrested for breaking that law. They were not arrested for what they were saying. Free speech does not preempt other laws.jschell wrote:
Which would be valid if it had anything to do with what I said.
It's quite straight forward. You've have repeatedly claimed that "restriced use" always trumps the 1st amemdment. I'm not sure why you bring this up now. It's not what I was responding to. I understand your statement, it just doesn't mean anything.
jschell wrote:
The protesters broke a law.
Prove it. Were they all convicted of something? Were any?
jschell wrote:
They were not arrested for what they were saying.
What makes you so sure? They were exercising their 1st amendment rights and they were arrested. There you have a prima facie case for being arrest for their speech.
jschell wrote:
Free speech does not preempt other laws.
Of course it does. The language of the 1st amendment is quite clear on this point.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Your link has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of "passive". And your statement was explicitly stating your personel view of the definition.
-
jschell wrote:
Restricted use requirements.
"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." The amendment is clear. The first amendment trumps "restricted use".
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
You have quoted the first ammendment correctly but what you bolded you should re-read. Specicially "The Right of the people peacably to assemble" This point is very clear, but somehow missed by most. The first ammendment does not grant you the right to plant your ass where ever you want, public property or not. If you are causing a disturbance, it is not peacably. If you allow people to assemble where ever they want people could protest on Interstates during rush hours, subway tracks, Libraries, Yell Fire in crowded areas, and yes have hate speach in intentionally conflicting areas. All which I have listed would NOT be peacably assembling. If a protest occurred as such it would be for the intention of causing disorder, which by definition is not peacably. Most of the "Occupy" demonstrations are for that purpose, to cause chaos and disorder. And they are not protected by the first ammendment for that reason.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
You have quoted the first ammendment correctly but what you bolded you should re-read. Specicially "The Right of the people peacably to assemble" This point is very clear, but somehow missed by most. The first ammendment does not grant you the right to plant your ass where ever you want, public property or not. If you are causing a disturbance, it is not peacably. If you allow people to assemble where ever they want people could protest on Interstates during rush hours, subway tracks, Libraries, Yell Fire in crowded areas, and yes have hate speach in intentionally conflicting areas. All which I have listed would NOT be peacably assembling. If a protest occurred as such it would be for the intention of causing disorder, which by definition is not peacably. Most of the "Occupy" demonstrations are for that purpose, to cause chaos and disorder. And they are not protected by the first ammendment for that reason.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Well, your completely wrong about what "peaceable" means. Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939) ,the high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), the Supreme Court held that orderly union picketing that informs the public of issues is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech of the press and the right of peaceable assembly and cannot be prosecuted under state loitering and picketing laws. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), in an 8-to-1 decision, the high court overturned the breach of peace convictions of 180 black students who had peacefully marched to the state capitol to protest discrimination. The police stopped the demonstration and arrested the students because they were afraid that the 200-300 who gathered to watch the demonstration might cause a riot. The court held the state law unconstitutionally over-broad because it penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly "peaceable" means non-violent.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If you allow people to assemble where ever they want people could protest on Interstates during rush hours, subway tracks, Libraries, Yell Fire in crowded areas
yes, I would agree that the 1st amendment does not protect protests where there is a danger to the public. None of that is applicable to UC-Davis.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Most of the "Occupy" demonstrations are for that purpose, to cause chaos and disorder
On the contrary. The Occupy movement is not about causing chaos. They are about protesting the massive inequality in this country, the 2 tiered system of justice and probably a number of other things as well. Gathering in Zucotti Park or the Quad on UC-Davis has nothing in common with yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Well, your completely wrong about what "peaceable" means. Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939) ,the high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), the Supreme Court held that orderly union picketing that informs the public of issues is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech of the press and the right of peaceable assembly and cannot be prosecuted under state loitering and picketing laws. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), in an 8-to-1 decision, the high court overturned the breach of peace convictions of 180 black students who had peacefully marched to the state capitol to protest discrimination. The police stopped the demonstration and arrested the students because they were afraid that the 200-300 who gathered to watch the demonstration might cause a riot. The court held the state law unconstitutionally over-broad because it penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly "peaceable" means non-violent.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If you allow people to assemble where ever they want people could protest on Interstates during rush hours, subway tracks, Libraries, Yell Fire in crowded areas
yes, I would agree that the 1st amendment does not protect protests where there is a danger to the public. None of that is applicable to UC-Davis.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Most of the "Occupy" demonstrations are for that purpose, to cause chaos and disorder
On the contrary. The Occupy movement is not about causing chaos. They are about protesting the massive inequality in this country, the 2 tiered system of justice and probably a number of other things as well. Gathering in Zucotti Park or the Quad on UC-Davis has nothing in common with yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939) ,the high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.
Again, the word peaceful. This means they were 'peacably' demonostrating (more on that as your definition is wrong).
Majerus wrote:
Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), the Supreme Court held that orderly union picketing that informs the public of issues is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech of the press and the right of peaceable assembly and cannot be prosecuted under state loitering and picketing laws.
Key word you should see there is 'orderly'.
Majerus wrote:
"peaceable" means non-violent.
Wrong. You may 'feel' that is the definition, but I urge you to find a source that claims that is actually the definition. Peacably means Inclined or disposed to peace; promoting calm[^] This is not the same as saying not violent. For example, a country can cause and act of war with out actually 'atacking' the other. Because there are such actions and even in-actions that are considered the opposite of peacably. I can park my car on the middle of the interstate and get out and sit on the roof and protest. No violent act. However, this is not peacably. This is intentionaly trying to cause issues with trafic.
Majerus wrote:
yes, I would agree that the 1st amendment does not protect protests where there is a danger to the public. None of that is applicable to UC-Davis.
They were causing disorder. That is not peacably.
Majerus wrote:
On the contrary. The Occupy movement is not about causing chaos. They are about protesting the massive inequality in this country, the 2 tiered system of justice and probably a number of other things as well. Gathering in Zucotti Park or the Quad on UC-Davis has nothing in common with yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
That is what they are protesting not how. The how is to shut things down by occupying and blockading. Their goal is in fact to shut
-
Majerus wrote:
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939) ,the high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.
Again, the word peaceful. This means they were 'peacably' demonostrating (more on that as your definition is wrong).
Majerus wrote:
Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), the Supreme Court held that orderly union picketing that informs the public of issues is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech of the press and the right of peaceable assembly and cannot be prosecuted under state loitering and picketing laws.
Key word you should see there is 'orderly'.
Majerus wrote:
"peaceable" means non-violent.
Wrong. You may 'feel' that is the definition, but I urge you to find a source that claims that is actually the definition. Peacably means Inclined or disposed to peace; promoting calm[^] This is not the same as saying not violent. For example, a country can cause and act of war with out actually 'atacking' the other. Because there are such actions and even in-actions that are considered the opposite of peacably. I can park my car on the middle of the interstate and get out and sit on the roof and protest. No violent act. However, this is not peacably. This is intentionaly trying to cause issues with trafic.
Majerus wrote:
yes, I would agree that the 1st amendment does not protect protests where there is a danger to the public. None of that is applicable to UC-Davis.
They were causing disorder. That is not peacably.
Majerus wrote:
On the contrary. The Occupy movement is not about causing chaos. They are about protesting the massive inequality in this country, the 2 tiered system of justice and probably a number of other things as well. Gathering in Zucotti Park or the Quad on UC-Davis has nothing in common with yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
That is what they are protesting not how. The how is to shut things down by occupying and blockading. Their goal is in fact to shut
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Wrong. You may 'feel' that is the definition, but I urge you to find a source that claims that is actually the definition. Peacably means
Inclined or disposed to peace; promoting calm[^]I really don't believe that you believe what you are saying. A google definition to interpret one of our most important rights? If that's all you've got, you lose. devoid of violence or force [^] Using your definition of peaceable explain to me how Westboro Baptist protests are peaceable? What about all those abortion clinic protesters?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
They were causing disorder
That's your unsupported opinion. I've provided plenty of court decisions to back up my opinion. You've got nothing more than a cherry picked definition of a single word.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This is by definition not peacably.
Obviously not. There is more than one definition of peaceable on the internet, and you haven't shown that your definition is anything like the legal definition. But if your not interest in arguing the law, then I will end with this: "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." [^] It's rock solid. Your definition for "peaceable" is a big fail.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass