I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
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
-
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
Majerus wrote:
Using your definition of peaceable explain to me how Westboro Baptist protests are peaceable? What about all those abortion clinic protesters?
Just because some protests do not end with pepper spray does not make them legal, or in the right. Fact is there is biasm in what is allowed. Maybe that is not fair, but if you do break the law you can't gripe. If you are speeding down the highway behind some other speeder and get pulled over, it is not a valid argument to say "But the guy in front of me was going just as fast if not faster"
Majerus wrote:
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.
Actually it is not my opinion. The reason the police were called was because of disorder.
Majerus wrote:
It's rock solid. Your definition for "peaceable" is a big fail.
You should really look closely at federal rulings. As they are the ones that determine what the ammendments and constition means. There have been numerous cases where speech was supressed due to protection of the state. Granted, I think many of them were incorrect rulings. But with them over time the courts began to determine more what it means to be peacable. And in todays world it is quite clear. Don't EF with societal flow and you can say what ever and do what ever the heck you want. You start rocking the boat too much and pissing people off you are breaking the law. You can say you think it is wrong and the first ammendment protects you. You are wrong. Take a look around. We do not live in the 16th century. Certain things can not be said in certain contexts. And certain actions can not be done in certain places. If you do not like it, go start your own hippie commune live naked and smoke what you want. Because the ammendments do allow you to do that. Just stay the f*ck out of the rest of societies way. Because if you come out of your little commune trying to push your hippie beliefs on the rest of us, we will lock you up and forget about you. Nuf' said.
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.
-
Majerus wrote:
Using your definition of peaceable explain to me how Westboro Baptist protests are peaceable? What about all those abortion clinic protesters?
Just because some protests do not end with pepper spray does not make them legal, or in the right. Fact is there is biasm in what is allowed. Maybe that is not fair, but if you do break the law you can't gripe. If you are speeding down the highway behind some other speeder and get pulled over, it is not a valid argument to say "But the guy in front of me was going just as fast if not faster"
Majerus wrote:
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.
Actually it is not my opinion. The reason the police were called was because of disorder.
Majerus wrote:
It's rock solid. Your definition for "peaceable" is a big fail.
You should really look closely at federal rulings. As they are the ones that determine what the ammendments and constition means. There have been numerous cases where speech was supressed due to protection of the state. Granted, I think many of them were incorrect rulings. But with them over time the courts began to determine more what it means to be peacable. And in todays world it is quite clear. Don't EF with societal flow and you can say what ever and do what ever the heck you want. You start rocking the boat too much and pissing people off you are breaking the law. You can say you think it is wrong and the first ammendment protects you. You are wrong. Take a look around. We do not live in the 16th century. Certain things can not be said in certain contexts. And certain actions can not be done in certain places. If you do not like it, go start your own hippie commune live naked and smoke what you want. Because the ammendments do allow you to do that. Just stay the f*ck out of the rest of societies way. Because if you come out of your little commune trying to push your hippie beliefs on the rest of us, we will lock you up and forget about you. Nuf' said.
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.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Just because some protests do not end with pepper spray does not make them legal, or in the right.
That may be true, but the protests that I asked you about are legal. So have you dropped your peaceable argument? If not answer the question.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The reason the police were called was because of disorder.
I don't think that is correct. I think that this is soley you opionion. I'd like to see you source on that. I'm aware of one excuse that brought the police to the quad and it wasn't disorder.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You should really look closely at federal rulings.
I have looked at plenty. But I see no reason to make your arguments for you. On the rest, I will agree that the 1st amendment is slowly being eroded and constitutional rights are being trampled on. But that hasn't been what this discussion has been about. All along you have claimed that the amendment itself and the word 'peaceably' made it toothless. I'm glad to see you've decided to drop that.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Just because some protests do not end with pepper spray does not make them legal, or in the right.
That may be true, but the protests that I asked you about are legal. So have you dropped your peaceable argument? If not answer the question.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The reason the police were called was because of disorder.
I don't think that is correct. I think that this is soley you opionion. I'd like to see you source on that. I'm aware of one excuse that brought the police to the quad and it wasn't disorder.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You should really look closely at federal rulings.
I have looked at plenty. But I see no reason to make your arguments for you. On the rest, I will agree that the 1st amendment is slowly being eroded and constitutional rights are being trampled on. But that hasn't been what this discussion has been about. All along you have claimed that the amendment itself and the word 'peaceably' made it toothless. I'm glad to see you've decided to drop that.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
You have misread entirely what I said. In summary, the constition is not to be interpreted and followed out by you. It is interpreted by Judges elected by society. It is then carried out by police forces who are run by elected officials, elected by scoiety. And it is to then be questioned by again more officials elected by society (DA etc.) Not you. Society over the years has clearly shown what they think peacable means. Don't f*ck with its normal activity. You can say what you want when you want and how you want. So long as it (society) does not have to listen if it does not want to. And so long as it can continue to function as it sees fit.
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 misread entirely what I said. In summary, the constition is not to be interpreted and followed out by you. It is interpreted by Judges elected by society. It is then carried out by police forces who are run by elected officials, elected by scoiety. And it is to then be questioned by again more officials elected by society (DA etc.) Not you. Society over the years has clearly shown what they think peacable means. Don't f*ck with its normal activity. You can say what you want when you want and how you want. So long as it (society) does not have to listen if it does not want to. And so long as it can continue to function as it sees fit.
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.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have misread entirely what I said.
No, not at all.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
In summary, the constition is not to be interpreted and followed out by you. It is interpreted by Judges elected by society. It is then carried out by police forces who are run by elected officials, elected by scoiety. And it is to then be questioned by again more officials elected by society (DA etc.)
I have never disputed that.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Don't f*ck with its normal activity. You can say what you want when you want and how you want. So long as it (society) does not have to listen if it does not want to. And so long as it can continue to function as it sees fit.
that's simply untrue. Case in point - Westboro Baptist. At another level you are also wrong. There is some truth that the rich and powerful will sic the police against groups they do not like. They often get away with it, but it is still neither constitutional nor legal. And that small group of powerful people are not society. Quit with the 'peaceable' argument. Explain Westboro.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
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:
Of course I understand. I also understand that the 1st amendment is supreme.
You are wrong. But to be fair I think that most active protesters have the same belief. I am however certain that at least some actually understand what impact limited use restrictions have. That is why they can actively plan activities which are intentionally supposed to lead to arrests.
Majerus wrote:
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.
You said "it was determined that any use was unreasonable." That pretty much sums up your argument. That statement is wrong. And you are misreading the case you cited completely.
-
Your willful ignorance cannot be disputed.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
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
Majerus wrote:
It's quite straight forward. You've have repeatedly claimed that "restriced use" always trumps the 1st amemdment.
Since I don't make absolute statements, that of course is not what I said. There are numerous cases where legal government bodies in the US have decided to ignore use restrictions to allow events which are often related to protests. The fact that the chose to do so however doesn't make it legal, it just makes it unenforced.
Majerus wrote:
Prove it. Were they all convicted of something? Were any?
Law breakers are often released at the discretion of prosecutors. And I already pointed out a significant reason for doing that for protesters - because of the cost of jury trials for large numbers of them. Doesn't mean a law wasn't broken.
Majerus wrote:
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.
This is where your ignorance is showing - your inability to distinguish that the first amendment is and what it isn't. It isn't a free pass. The Animal Liberation Front takes actions specifically intended to protest the way animals are treated. Their very actions are the protest. Yet when they are caught they are sent to jail. The following specifically shows that this was a protest, a political statement. http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-USA/DenverSheepskinFire.htm[^] Following shows that expression is not protected. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17364102[^] Contrast this with the following. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/go-topless-day-protest-at_n_932657.html#s334869&title=Nadine_Gary[
-
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.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have quoted the first ammendment correctly but what you bolded you should re-read....
Either you phrased your post very badly or you have no understanding about what you are talking about. Your post seems to suggest that either protesters were arrested for what they were saying and/or that they lost the right because of their actions. And both of those are utter nonsense.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have quoted the first ammendment correctly but what you bolded you should re-read....
Either you phrased your post very badly or you have no understanding about what you are talking about. Your post seems to suggest that either protesters were arrested for what they were saying and/or that they lost the right because of their actions. And both of those are utter nonsense.
They did not loose their rights to be camping where they were.... They never had them. Occupy the 'public' park across the street from my house and I will attempt to remove you if the police do not. Free speech does not give the right to be where ever you want.
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.