I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
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.
-
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[
jschell wrote:
Since I don't make absolute statements, that of course is not what I said.
Still sounds like that is exactly what you are saying. In the next statement you won't concede any more than that the authorities ignore lawbreaking.
jschell wrote:
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.
Well, you've still got it wrong. The 1st amendment is clear "Congress shall make no law". The court has carved out some exceptions, but one is not simply allowed to protest, one has the constitutional right to do so.
jschell wrote:
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.And you haven't shown that any law was broken.
jschell wrote:
It isn't a free pass.
Never said it was. Arson? Really? You're comparing people gathering on the quad to arson?
jschell wrote:
Doesn't alter the fact that a law was specifically being broken by some of the participants.
You keep saying it's a fact, but you have yet to support that claim and I've given ample opportunity for you to do so.
jschell wrote:
If, by way of your claim, free expression was absolute
I have never claimed that it is absolute. Numerous times during our conversation I have stated that there are exceptions.
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.
jschell wrote:
You are wrong.
No, I'm not. Just look at the protests at abortion clinics or Westboro Baptist.
jschell wrote:
impact limited use restrictions have.
I'm sure they do, and so do I. But I'm afraid your incorrect in your belief that limited use trumps the first amendment, except in very limited areas.
jschell wrote:
"it was determined that any use was unreasonable."
It was, in this case. I was not making a blanket statement, I was referring to that particular case and how it supported my statements about the pepper spraying at the quad. It would appear that you are under the mistaken belief that I have been arguing that pepper spray is never justifiable. I have always been talking about UC-Davis and brought the Humbolt case into the discussion in support of that.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
You are wrong.
No, I'm not. Just look at the protests at abortion clinics or Westboro Baptist.
jschell wrote:
impact limited use restrictions have.
I'm sure they do, and so do I. But I'm afraid your incorrect in your belief that limited use trumps the first amendment, except in very limited areas.
jschell wrote:
"it was determined that any use was unreasonable."
It was, in this case. I was not making a blanket statement, I was referring to that particular case and how it supported my statements about the pepper spraying at the quad. It would appear that you are under the mistaken belief that I have been arguing that pepper spray is never justifiable. I have always been talking about UC-Davis and brought the Humbolt case into the discussion in support of that.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
No, I'm not. Just look at the protests at abortion clinics or Westboro Baptist.
I suggest you look into the use restrictions of the locations of those protests.
Majerus wrote:
But I'm afraid your incorrect in your belief that limited use trumps the first amendment, except in very limited areas.
Again...tens of thousands of arrests over the years demonstrates you are wrong.
Majerus wrote:
I was not making a blanket statement,
Then your statements as a group was confusing. As an example see the statement that you made below. That would suggest to me that you do not approve of it for any reason.. "If you want to argue that pepper-spraying does not rise to the legal definition of torture - that's fine, I won't disagree. Doesn't change that what they did was unjustified and police brutality. And I'll still call it torture."
-
jschell wrote:
Since I don't make absolute statements, that of course is not what I said.
Still sounds like that is exactly what you are saying. In the next statement you won't concede any more than that the authorities ignore lawbreaking.
jschell wrote:
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.
Well, you've still got it wrong. The 1st amendment is clear "Congress shall make no law". The court has carved out some exceptions, but one is not simply allowed to protest, one has the constitutional right to do so.
jschell wrote:
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.And you haven't shown that any law was broken.
jschell wrote:
It isn't a free pass.
Never said it was. Arson? Really? You're comparing people gathering on the quad to arson?
jschell wrote:
Doesn't alter the fact that a law was specifically being broken by some of the participants.
You keep saying it's a fact, but you have yet to support that claim and I've given ample opportunity for you to do so.
jschell wrote:
If, by way of your claim, free expression was absolute
I have never claimed that it is absolute. Numerous times during our conversation I have stated that there are exceptions.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
In the next statement you won't concede any more than that the authorities ignore lawbreaking.
Because they do. And they say exactly that as well.
Majerus wrote:
but one is not simply allowed to protest, one has the constitutional right to do so
Repeating it over and over again isn't going to prove your point.
Majerus wrote:
And you haven't shown that any law was broken.
So you think that tens of thousands of protesters have been arrested solely to curtail their free speech rights? Such a sad view.
Majerus wrote:
Arson? Really? You're comparing people gathering on the quad to arson?
You are the one that is claiming that free speech both is an unlimited free pass and yet isn't at the same time. I am pointing out to you that no one gets arrested for "free speech". They get arrested for other completely valid laws. And free speech doesn't trump the domain of those other laws.
-
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.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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.Then your previous post was phrased badly.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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.Then your previous post was phrased badly.
-
Majerus wrote:
No, I'm not. Just look at the protests at abortion clinics or Westboro Baptist.
I suggest you look into the use restrictions of the locations of those protests.
Majerus wrote:
But I'm afraid your incorrect in your belief that limited use trumps the first amendment, except in very limited areas.
Again...tens of thousands of arrests over the years demonstrates you are wrong.
Majerus wrote:
I was not making a blanket statement,
Then your statements as a group was confusing. As an example see the statement that you made below. That would suggest to me that you do not approve of it for any reason.. "If you want to argue that pepper-spraying does not rise to the legal definition of torture - that's fine, I won't disagree. Doesn't change that what they did was unjustified and police brutality. And I'll still call it torture."
jschell wrote:
I suggest you look into the use restrictions of the locations of those protests.
Why? If you think that is the key ingredient, prove it. I really would like to understand why you think that Westboro is so difficult to silence, if you really believe that the first amendment is so toothless that any jurisdicition can silence it with a simple zoning change.
jschell wrote:
Again...tens of thousands of arrests over the years demonstrates you are wrong.
That's patently absurd. Arrests prove nothing. Case in point, UC-Davis. Who was charged? What were they charged with? No trials, no convictions. You seem to have forgotten that an arrest is not the same as a conviction, nor is it proof that a law was broken.
jschell wrote:
you do not approve of it for any reason..
Oh, it has it's purpose. As a substitute for deadly force.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
In the next statement you won't concede any more than that the authorities ignore lawbreaking.
Because they do. And they say exactly that as well.
Majerus wrote:
but one is not simply allowed to protest, one has the constitutional right to do so
Repeating it over and over again isn't going to prove your point.
Majerus wrote:
And you haven't shown that any law was broken.
So you think that tens of thousands of protesters have been arrested solely to curtail their free speech rights? Such a sad view.
Majerus wrote:
Arson? Really? You're comparing people gathering on the quad to arson?
You are the one that is claiming that free speech both is an unlimited free pass and yet isn't at the same time. I am pointing out to you that no one gets arrested for "free speech". They get arrested for other completely valid laws. And free speech doesn't trump the domain of those other laws.
jschell wrote:
Because they do. And they say exactly that as well.
Really? Everywhere, all the time? Even if that were true, An arrest is not proof that a law was broken. That's what trials are for.
jschell wrote:
but one is not simply allowed to protest, one has the constitutional right to do
soRepeating it over and over again isn't going to prove your point.
That's just plain bizarre. We have the first amendment. That is not up for debate.
jschell wrote:
So you think that tens of thousands of protesters have been arrested solely to curtail their free speech rights?
Quite often. You actually believe it doesn't happen?
jschell wrote:
You are the one that is claiming that free speech both is an unlimited free pass and yet isn't at the same time.
I do not. I've been very clear. Over and over again I have acknowledged that the courts have set some narrow limits.
jschell wrote:
And free speech doesn't trump the domain of those other laws.
Yeah, mostly it does.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
I suggest you look into the use restrictions of the locations of those protests.
Why? If you think that is the key ingredient, prove it. I really would like to understand why you think that Westboro is so difficult to silence, if you really believe that the first amendment is so toothless that any jurisdicition can silence it with a simple zoning change.
jschell wrote:
Again...tens of thousands of arrests over the years demonstrates you are wrong.
That's patently absurd. Arrests prove nothing. Case in point, UC-Davis. Who was charged? What were they charged with? No trials, no convictions. You seem to have forgotten that an arrest is not the same as a conviction, nor is it proof that a law was broken.
jschell wrote:
you do not approve of it for any reason..
Oh, it has it's purpose. As a substitute for deadly force.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Why? If you think that is the key ingredient, prove it.
As I stated numerous times the protesters knew they were going to be arrested. That there seems completely sufficient to "prove it".
Majerus wrote:
I really would like to understand why you think that Westboro is so difficult to silence, if you really believe that the first amendment is so toothless that any jurisdicition can silence it with a simple zoning change.
Utter nonsense since I said nothing like that.
Majerus wrote:
That's patently absurd. Arrests prove nothing. Case in point, UC-Davis. Who was charged? What were they charged with? No trials, no convictions. You seem to have forgotten that an arrest is not the same as a conviction, nor is it proof that a law was broken.
Your statement would only be meaningful if I had not addressed is specifically previously. First you seem to be claiming that tens of thousands of arrests in the last 30 years were specifically intended to restrict the protesters right of free speech. And further that this has been allowed to go on all this time without reprecussions. At the same time completely ignoring numerous (many) cases of free speech infringement which were in fact dealt with in the courts. Second, as I have said repeatedly, the fact that someone is not charged nor convicted is NOT the sole factor in whether a law was broken. Even straight up criminal cases are dismissed for various reasons. But protesters often SPECIFICALLY create a sitation where it is unreasonable to proceed not because a law wasn't broken BUT because the load on the court system and cost is not WORTH it. Do you not know that that is a specific tactic in protesters? Or do you just not understand how this tactic works? Or perhaps you think the court systems are not overloaded and/or do not cost anything?
Majerus wrote:
As a substitute for deadly force.
I can only suppose you have no idea how crowd control works nor what the consequences are when crowd control fails. Or perhaps you are just suggesting that it would be better to wait for the rioting to start and then start shooting people.
-
jschell wrote:
Because they do. And they say exactly that as well.
Really? Everywhere, all the time? Even if that were true, An arrest is not proof that a law was broken. That's what trials are for.
jschell wrote:
but one is not simply allowed to protest, one has the constitutional right to do
soRepeating it over and over again isn't going to prove your point.
That's just plain bizarre. We have the first amendment. That is not up for debate.
jschell wrote:
So you think that tens of thousands of protesters have been arrested solely to curtail their free speech rights?
Quite often. You actually believe it doesn't happen?
jschell wrote:
You are the one that is claiming that free speech both is an unlimited free pass and yet isn't at the same time.
I do not. I've been very clear. Over and over again I have acknowledged that the courts have set some narrow limits.
jschell wrote:
And free speech doesn't trump the domain of those other laws.
Yeah, mostly it does.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Really? Everywhere, all the time?
You are kidding right? What exactly do you think the point of a "plea bargain" is? Or do you think it is very rare?
Majerus wrote:
An arrest is not proof that a law was broken. That's what trials are for.
Utter nonsense which completely ignores the reality of the modern US court system.
Majerus wrote:
We have the first amendment. That is not up for debate.
I agree. But no one was arrested for what they were saying. You seem incapable of grasping that.
Majerus wrote:
Quite often. You actually believe it doesn't happen?
Ahh...that explains much... So you really believe that some really trivial free speech cases go to court and some even go to trial and appeal and yet blatant and vast abuse is allowed to proceeed without pause. I suppose you also have the idea that the court systems are involved in this vast conspiracy as well since these days any arrest of a protester is almost immediately followed by a request for hearing on exactly what you are claiming, that they were arrested to curtail their free speech, and the courts almost always disagree. But given that you think this vast and odd conspiracy exists then of course it is obvious why you have the view that you do.
Majerus wrote:
Yeah, mostly it does.
Nope. Oh wait a minute...with the vast conspiracy it does. But in the real world, most protesters are given reasonable latitude even when they completely ignore rules that would get the normal citizen (the ones not claiming that they were protesting) a date with a court. And absolutely no problems when protesters actually follow the rules that the rest of civilized society must. But when the stop following the rules they get arrested. For breaking the rules. Not for what they are saying.
-
Majerus wrote:
Why? If you think that is the key ingredient, prove it.
As I stated numerous times the protesters knew they were going to be arrested. That there seems completely sufficient to "prove it".
Majerus wrote:
I really would like to understand why you think that Westboro is so difficult to silence, if you really believe that the first amendment is so toothless that any jurisdicition can silence it with a simple zoning change.
Utter nonsense since I said nothing like that.
Majerus wrote:
That's patently absurd. Arrests prove nothing. Case in point, UC-Davis. Who was charged? What were they charged with? No trials, no convictions. You seem to have forgotten that an arrest is not the same as a conviction, nor is it proof that a law was broken.
Your statement would only be meaningful if I had not addressed is specifically previously. First you seem to be claiming that tens of thousands of arrests in the last 30 years were specifically intended to restrict the protesters right of free speech. And further that this has been allowed to go on all this time without reprecussions. At the same time completely ignoring numerous (many) cases of free speech infringement which were in fact dealt with in the courts. Second, as I have said repeatedly, the fact that someone is not charged nor convicted is NOT the sole factor in whether a law was broken. Even straight up criminal cases are dismissed for various reasons. But protesters often SPECIFICALLY create a sitation where it is unreasonable to proceed not because a law wasn't broken BUT because the load on the court system and cost is not WORTH it. Do you not know that that is a specific tactic in protesters? Or do you just not understand how this tactic works? Or perhaps you think the court systems are not overloaded and/or do not cost anything?
Majerus wrote:
As a substitute for deadly force.
I can only suppose you have no idea how crowd control works nor what the consequences are when crowd control fails. Or perhaps you are just suggesting that it would be better to wait for the rioting to start and then start shooting people.
jschell wrote:
the protesters knew they were going to be arrested. That there seems completely sufficient to "prove it".
Actually, no it isn't. They knew they were going to be arrested because the police said they would be arrested.
jschell wrote:
Utter nonsense since I said nothing like that.
You have repeatedly said that "restricted use" trumps the 1st amendment. So why can't Westboro be silenced?
jschell wrote:
First you seem to be claiming that tens of thousands of arrests in the last 30 years were specifically intended to restrict the protesters right of free speech.
No, I did not. I said it happened 'Quite often'.
jschell wrote:
And further that this has been allowed to go on all this time without reprecussions
I said nothing at all about repercussions.
jschell wrote:
At the same time completely ignoring numerous (many) cases of free speech infringement which were in fact dealt with in the courts.
No, I haven't ignored it. I have aknowledged that the courts have put some restrictions on speech.
jschell wrote:
Second, as I have said repeatedly, the fact that someone is not charged nor convicted is NOT the sole factor in whether a law was broken.
Maybe, but it has been your sole 'proof' that any law was broken.
jschell wrote:
But protesters often SPECIFICALLY create a sitation where it is unreasonable to proceed not because a law wasn't broken BUT because the load on the court system and cost is not WORTH it.
And many times the prosecutors do not proceed because they know they don't have a case.
jschell wrote:
I can only suppose you have no idea how crowd control works nor what the consequences are when crowd control fails. Or perhaps you are just suggesting that it would be better to wait for the rioting to start and then start shooting people.
LOL. Right. Before pepper spray the cops were utterly helpless. Their one and only recourse was to kill people.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
Really? Everywhere, all the time?
You are kidding right? What exactly do you think the point of a "plea bargain" is? Or do you think it is very rare?
Majerus wrote:
An arrest is not proof that a law was broken. That's what trials are for.
Utter nonsense which completely ignores the reality of the modern US court system.
Majerus wrote:
We have the first amendment. That is not up for debate.
I agree. But no one was arrested for what they were saying. You seem incapable of grasping that.
Majerus wrote:
Quite often. You actually believe it doesn't happen?
Ahh...that explains much... So you really believe that some really trivial free speech cases go to court and some even go to trial and appeal and yet blatant and vast abuse is allowed to proceeed without pause. I suppose you also have the idea that the court systems are involved in this vast conspiracy as well since these days any arrest of a protester is almost immediately followed by a request for hearing on exactly what you are claiming, that they were arrested to curtail their free speech, and the courts almost always disagree. But given that you think this vast and odd conspiracy exists then of course it is obvious why you have the view that you do.
Majerus wrote:
Yeah, mostly it does.
Nope. Oh wait a minute...with the vast conspiracy it does. But in the real world, most protesters are given reasonable latitude even when they completely ignore rules that would get the normal citizen (the ones not claiming that they were protesting) a date with a court. And absolutely no problems when protesters actually follow the rules that the rest of civilized society must. But when the stop following the rules they get arrested. For breaking the rules. Not for what they are saying.
jschell wrote:
What exactly do you think the point of a "plea bargain" is?
Or do you think it is very rare?You seem to have forgotten what we have been talking about.
jschell wrote:
Utter nonsense which completely ignores the reality of the modern US court system.
And you seem to have forgotten that there were no plea bargains at UC-Davis. You can't even tell me what "charge" they were arrested for.
jschell wrote:
But no one was arrested for what they were saying.
Prove it. You haven't been able to cite any charges.
jschell wrote:
So you really believe...
I have no idea what you are talking about.
jschell wrote:
vast and odd conspiracy exists
What are you talking about?
jschell wrote:
But when the stop following the rules they get arrested. For breaking the rules. Not for what they are saying
What rules? The only evidence you cite that any rules were broken is the fact they got arrested.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
the protesters knew they were going to be arrested. That there seems completely sufficient to "prove it".
Actually, no it isn't. They knew they were going to be arrested because the police said they would be arrested.
jschell wrote:
Utter nonsense since I said nothing like that.
You have repeatedly said that "restricted use" trumps the 1st amendment. So why can't Westboro be silenced?
jschell wrote:
First you seem to be claiming that tens of thousands of arrests in the last 30 years were specifically intended to restrict the protesters right of free speech.
No, I did not. I said it happened 'Quite often'.
jschell wrote:
And further that this has been allowed to go on all this time without reprecussions
I said nothing at all about repercussions.
jschell wrote:
At the same time completely ignoring numerous (many) cases of free speech infringement which were in fact dealt with in the courts.
No, I haven't ignored it. I have aknowledged that the courts have put some restrictions on speech.
jschell wrote:
Second, as I have said repeatedly, the fact that someone is not charged nor convicted is NOT the sole factor in whether a law was broken.
Maybe, but it has been your sole 'proof' that any law was broken.
jschell wrote:
But protesters often SPECIFICALLY create a sitation where it is unreasonable to proceed not because a law wasn't broken BUT because the load on the court system and cost is not WORTH it.
And many times the prosecutors do not proceed because they know they don't have a case.
jschell wrote:
I can only suppose you have no idea how crowd control works nor what the consequences are when crowd control fails. Or perhaps you are just suggesting that it would be better to wait for the rioting to start and then start shooting people.
LOL. Right. Before pepper spray the cops were utterly helpless. Their one and only recourse was to kill people.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Actually, no it isn't. They knew they were going to be arrested because the police said they would be arrested.
Prove that. Or don't prove as I don't care. All that I care about is that the protesters knew that they were going to be arrested. That proves to me that the there was grounds for being arrested, regardless of your personal opinion on the subject.
Majerus wrote:
You have repeatedly said that "restricted use" trumps the 1st amendment. So why can't Westboro be silenced?
No I didn't say that. I said that the first amendent does not nullify other laws. The Westboro case is obvious because the laws are being passed specifically to stop those protesters. Conversely, and I can't speak to UC directly, but I know that there are existing laws in most "public" places like parks and "public" buildings which exist to maintain the purpose of those "public" places and do not and were not put into place to restrict free speech. And additionally that enforcement of those laws is often deferred to specifically support the right to free speech when reasonable use of such "public" places happens. And that has been supported numerous times by the courts when protesters try to repudiate such laws by claiming exactly as you - that free speech trumps everything. It doesn't now and never has.
Majerus wrote:
No, I haven't ignored it. I have aknowledged that the courts have put some restrictions on speech.
You refuse absolutely to recognize use restrictions by spinning some wild ideas about what governments are while ignoring the reality of what they are. Fortunately the courts do not.
Majerus wrote:
And many times the prosecutors do not proceed because they know they don't have a case.
Nonsense. But feel free to prove that assertion with some real numbers.
Majerus wrote:
Right. Before pepper spray the cops were utterly helpless. Their one and only recourse was to kill people.
Clubs and variations like that were used for decades. Sometimes extensively.
-
jschell wrote:
What exactly do you think the point of a "plea bargain" is?
Or do you think it is very rare?You seem to have forgotten what we have been talking about.
jschell wrote:
Utter nonsense which completely ignores the reality of the modern US court system.
And you seem to have forgotten that there were no plea bargains at UC-Davis. You can't even tell me what "charge" they were arrested for.
jschell wrote:
But no one was arrested for what they were saying.
Prove it. You haven't been able to cite any charges.
jschell wrote:
So you really believe...
I have no idea what you are talking about.
jschell wrote:
vast and odd conspiracy exists
What are you talking about?
jschell wrote:
But when the stop following the rules they get arrested. For breaking the rules. Not for what they are saying
What rules? The only evidence you cite that any rules were broken is the fact they got arrested.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
You seem to have forgotten what we have been talking about.
You are the one that claimed "trials" was the only way that one can prove that a law was broken.
Majerus wrote:
And you seem to have forgotten that there were no plea bargains at UC-Davis. You can't even tell me what "charge" they were arrested for.
Which would be relevant if it had anything do with what I said. You are the one claiming that one can't break a law unless one is convicted (via a trial) of it.
Majerus wrote:
Prove it. You haven't been able to cite any charges
I don't need to. Numerous court cases in probably over the past 20 years or longer which have been brought by social activists claiming exactly what you are have almost always been dismissed as unfounded. And I only same 'almost' because there could if fact be a couple that were due to police abuse but which I am not aware. (And just to be clear your previously cited link is NOT an example of that.)
Majerus wrote:
What are you talking about?
You claimed that most of the tens of thousands of arrests by protesters have been specifically driven by the desire to curtail their free speech. And further that the fact that many court cases have attempted to prove that but have failed doesn't impact your statement. Thus you are creating a theory of a vast conspiracy that exists to subvert free speech. And all of that is nonsense. Not to mention that it ignores the huge number, probably in the millions, of protesters that were not arrested during the same time.
Majerus wrote:
The only evidence you cite that any rules were broken is the fact they got arrested.
The only evidence you cite for the converse is the same.
-
Majerus wrote:
You seem to have forgotten what we have been talking about.
You are the one that claimed "trials" was the only way that one can prove that a law was broken.
Majerus wrote:
And you seem to have forgotten that there were no plea bargains at UC-Davis. You can't even tell me what "charge" they were arrested for.
Which would be relevant if it had anything do with what I said. You are the one claiming that one can't break a law unless one is convicted (via a trial) of it.
Majerus wrote:
Prove it. You haven't been able to cite any charges
I don't need to. Numerous court cases in probably over the past 20 years or longer which have been brought by social activists claiming exactly what you are have almost always been dismissed as unfounded. And I only same 'almost' because there could if fact be a couple that were due to police abuse but which I am not aware. (And just to be clear your previously cited link is NOT an example of that.)
Majerus wrote:
What are you talking about?
You claimed that most of the tens of thousands of arrests by protesters have been specifically driven by the desire to curtail their free speech. And further that the fact that many court cases have attempted to prove that but have failed doesn't impact your statement. Thus you are creating a theory of a vast conspiracy that exists to subvert free speech. And all of that is nonsense. Not to mention that it ignores the huge number, probably in the millions, of protesters that were not arrested during the same time.
Majerus wrote:
The only evidence you cite that any rules were broken is the fact they got arrested.
The only evidence you cite for the converse is the same.
jschell wrote:
You are the one that claimed "trials" was the only way that one can prove that a law was broken.
No, I haven't. What I have said is that an arrest is not proof that a crime has been committed.
jschell wrote:
You are the one claiming that one can't break a law unless one is convicted (via a trial) of it.
I have not made that claim. What I have said is that an arrest is not proof that a crime was committed.
jschell wrote:
almost always been dismissed as unfounded
prove it.
jschell wrote:
And just to be clear your previously cited link is NOT an example of that.)
Yes it is.
jschell wrote:
You claimed that most of the tens of thousands of arrests by protesters have been specifically driven by the desire to curtail their free speech.
No, I have not. Many, without a doubt, have.
jschell wrote:
And further that the fact that many court cases have attempted to prove that but have failed doesn't impact your statement.
What court cases? you haven't provided any examples.
jschell wrote:
The only evidence you cite for the converse is the same
I'm not trying to prove the converse. Simply pointing out that you have failed to prove your point.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
Actually, no it isn't. They knew they were going to be arrested because the police said they would be arrested.
Prove that. Or don't prove as I don't care. All that I care about is that the protesters knew that they were going to be arrested. That proves to me that the there was grounds for being arrested, regardless of your personal opinion on the subject.
Majerus wrote:
You have repeatedly said that "restricted use" trumps the 1st amendment. So why can't Westboro be silenced?
No I didn't say that. I said that the first amendent does not nullify other laws. The Westboro case is obvious because the laws are being passed specifically to stop those protesters. Conversely, and I can't speak to UC directly, but I know that there are existing laws in most "public" places like parks and "public" buildings which exist to maintain the purpose of those "public" places and do not and were not put into place to restrict free speech. And additionally that enforcement of those laws is often deferred to specifically support the right to free speech when reasonable use of such "public" places happens. And that has been supported numerous times by the courts when protesters try to repudiate such laws by claiming exactly as you - that free speech trumps everything. It doesn't now and never has.
Majerus wrote:
No, I haven't ignored it. I have aknowledged that the courts have put some restrictions on speech.
You refuse absolutely to recognize use restrictions by spinning some wild ideas about what governments are while ignoring the reality of what they are. Fortunately the courts do not.
Majerus wrote:
And many times the prosecutors do not proceed because they know they don't have a case.
Nonsense. But feel free to prove that assertion with some real numbers.
Majerus wrote:
Right. Before pepper spray the cops were utterly helpless. Their one and only recourse was to kill people.
Clubs and variations like that were used for decades. Sometimes extensively.
jschell wrote:
All that I care about is that the protesters knew that they were going to be arrested. That proves to me that the there was grounds for being arrested
That is your personal opinion and I am grateful that the law is on my side in this one. An arrest is not evidence of a crime.
jschell wrote:
No I didn't say that. I said that the first amendent does not nullify other laws.
Actually, it does. you might consider what it means when a law is found unconstitutional by the courts.
jschell wrote:
The Westboro case is obvious because the laws are being passed specifically to stop those protesters.
You might wonder why they are have such a hard time creating a law that meets the constitution requirments of the 1st amendment.
jschell wrote:
Nonsense. But feel free to prove that assertion with some real numbers.
You are really veering into an alternate reality now. You want me to provide numbers? You first.
jschell wrote:
Numerous court cases in probably over the past 20 years or longer which have been brought by social activists claiming exactly what you are have almost always been dismissed as unfounded.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
All that I care about is that the protesters knew that they were going to be arrested. That proves to me that the there was grounds for being arrested
That is your personal opinion and I am grateful that the law is on my side in this one. An arrest is not evidence of a crime.
jschell wrote:
No I didn't say that. I said that the first amendent does not nullify other laws.
Actually, it does. you might consider what it means when a law is found unconstitutional by the courts.
jschell wrote:
The Westboro case is obvious because the laws are being passed specifically to stop those protesters.
You might wonder why they are have such a hard time creating a law that meets the constitution requirments of the 1st amendment.
jschell wrote:
Nonsense. But feel free to prove that assertion with some real numbers.
You are really veering into an alternate reality now. You want me to provide numbers? You first.
jschell wrote:
Numerous court cases in probably over the past 20 years or longer which have been brought by social activists claiming exactly what you are have almost always been dismissed as unfounded.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Actually, it does. you might consider what it means when a law is found unconstitutional by the courts.
That has nothing to do with what I said. The fact that courts sometimes invalidate laws does not mean that all laws are invalidated. The courts have on numerous occasions upheld arrests of protesters.
Majerus wrote:
You might wonder why they are have such a hard time creating a law that meets the constitution requirments of the 1st amendment.
You might wonder. I do not. I understand exactly what the courts findings were in regard to that specific case and I also understand why they do not nullify other laws (which you claim happens) which serve a legitimate purpose and which are enforced even when protesters do not like it.
Majerus wrote:
You are really veering into an alternate reality now. You want me to provide numbers? You first.
You stated the prosecutors do it "often". Your assertion. I don't need to prove anything.
-
jschell wrote:
You are the one that claimed "trials" was the only way that one can prove that a law was broken.
No, I haven't. What I have said is that an arrest is not proof that a crime has been committed.
jschell wrote:
You are the one claiming that one can't break a law unless one is convicted (via a trial) of it.
I have not made that claim. What I have said is that an arrest is not proof that a crime was committed.
jschell wrote:
almost always been dismissed as unfounded
prove it.
jschell wrote:
And just to be clear your previously cited link is NOT an example of that.)
Yes it is.
jschell wrote:
You claimed that most of the tens of thousands of arrests by protesters have been specifically driven by the desire to curtail their free speech.
No, I have not. Many, without a doubt, have.
jschell wrote:
And further that the fact that many court cases have attempted to prove that but have failed doesn't impact your statement.
What court cases? you haven't provided any examples.
jschell wrote:
The only evidence you cite for the converse is the same
I'm not trying to prove the converse. Simply pointing out that you have failed to prove your point.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
What I have said is that an arrest is not proof that a crime has been committed.
You have made it clear that you refuse to accept the possibility that they were arrested for breaking a law. The following looks like there are many possibilities for arrest for breaking a law. I like this one especially since it specifically addresses free speech but makes it clear that protesters (and you) "...must understand that there are consequences for such action(s). These may include arrest and prosecution for criminal law violations and University action." http://police.berkeley.edu/rules/free_speech_policies.html[^]
Majerus wrote:
No, I have not. Many, without a doubt, have.
As stated nonsense. Now if you want to claim that for example 200 is "many" then that might make it clearer. But it would be 200 out of millions of protesters in the past 30 years and 200 out of tens of thousands arrested. So statistically insignificant. (I never claimed that abuse never happened but rather that it very rarely does.)
Majerus wrote:
What court cases? you haven't provided any examples.
Here is one. Specifically says that the court found that the protesters free speech rights had not been violated. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/29995570/detail.html[^]
-
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.
you did realize at some point that you were debating with a troll....right? It took me a while as well. ;)
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)