I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
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) -
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[^]
jschell wrote:
You have made it clear that you refuse to accept the possibility that they were arrested for breaking a law.
No, I haven't refused to accept the possibility. I have repeatedly stated that the mere fact of arrest is not enough.
jschell wrote:
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.)
Think what you like. This is simply our own personal opionions. you haven't provided a shred of evidence about "why" any of these people were arrested. But again you have forgotten what were were taking about and it was not abuse.
jschell wrote:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/29995570/detail.html[^]
Good for you! I'm suprised you couldn't do better. A couple of people tried to beat traffic tickets. :)
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:
That has nothing to do with what I said.
In that case your agueing against something I have never said. I never said that any laws had been nullified.
jschell wrote:
that all laws are invalidated.
I have never made that claim.
jschell wrote:
why they do not nullify other laws (which you claim happens)
I have not.
jschell wrote:
Your assertion. I don't need to prove anything.
Actually you do. You have claimed that prosecutors don't prosecute because it's just too expensive, or too much trouble.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
That has nothing to do with what I said.
In that case your agueing against something I have never said. I never said that any laws had been nullified.
jschell wrote:
that all laws are invalidated.
I have never made that claim.
jschell wrote:
why they do not nullify other laws (which you claim happens)
I have not.
jschell wrote:
Your assertion. I don't need to prove anything.
Actually you do. You have claimed that prosecutors don't prosecute because it's just too expensive, or too much trouble.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
I never said that any laws had been nullified.
Then exactly what was your point when you said "So why can't Westboro be silenced?"
Majerus wrote:
I have never made that claim.
I said "You however have no understanding of limited use restrictions." You replied "I also understand that the 1st amendment is supreme." I said "And free speech doesn't trump the domain of those other laws." You said "Yeah, mostly it does." From that it certainly seems to me that you are claiming that the 1st amendment nullifies (or some other word that means invalidates/removes/etc) other laws.
Majerus wrote:
You have claimed that prosecutors don't prosecute because it's just too expensive, or too much trouble.
I see. That is ignorance on your part then. As I said this is a strategy for protesters, one that has be publicized for some time. http://www.thelawstreetjournal.com/blog/post/occupy-wall-street-to-occupy-the-courts/[^] http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2202697[^] http://www.presstv.ir/detail/205622.html[^] http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/10/10/most-occupy-iowa-protesters-will-demand-jury-trial-attorney-says/[^] Best for last. Search for "jury trial". It is from 1999, from the Seattle WTO protests. Specifically says "In this way we are hoping to overwhelm the justic
-
jschell wrote:
You have made it clear that you refuse to accept the possibility that they were arrested for breaking a law.
No, I haven't refused to accept the possibility. I have repeatedly stated that the mere fact of arrest is not enough.
jschell wrote:
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.)
Think what you like. This is simply our own personal opionions. you haven't provided a shred of evidence about "why" any of these people were arrested. But again you have forgotten what were were taking about and it was not abuse.
jschell wrote:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/29995570/detail.html[^]
Good for you! I'm suprised you couldn't do better. A couple of people tried to beat traffic tickets. :)
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
No, I haven't refused to accept the possibility. I have repeatedly stated that the mere fact of arrest is not enough.
Yet breaking a law to get arrested is a protest strategy. And since I am sure you will claim otherwise I will repost the following from a protester admitting to participating in exactly that strategy. http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2202697[^]
Majerus wrote:
This is simply our own personal opionions
Call it what you will. I know how many protesters there have been and how few get arrested. I know what they get arrested for and I am often aware of the outcome of their legal proceedings. I also enjoy reading about protest strategies when I come across them. Nothing I have seen supports what you are claiming. And I am not going to attempt to research the last 20 years of reading that I have done to demonstrate it to you.
Majerus wrote:
Good for you! I'm suprised you couldn't do better. A couple of people tried to beat traffic tickets.
Either you misunderstood the article or don't understand how to read it. The reported incidents were part of the trial, not the entire thing. For example the following was also part of the trial. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19493803[^]
-
Majerus wrote:
I never said that any laws had been nullified.
Then exactly what was your point when you said "So why can't Westboro be silenced?"
Majerus wrote:
I have never made that claim.
I said "You however have no understanding of limited use restrictions." You replied "I also understand that the 1st amendment is supreme." I said "And free speech doesn't trump the domain of those other laws." You said "Yeah, mostly it does." From that it certainly seems to me that you are claiming that the 1st amendment nullifies (or some other word that means invalidates/removes/etc) other laws.
Majerus wrote:
You have claimed that prosecutors don't prosecute because it's just too expensive, or too much trouble.
I see. That is ignorance on your part then. As I said this is a strategy for protesters, one that has be publicized for some time. http://www.thelawstreetjournal.com/blog/post/occupy-wall-street-to-occupy-the-courts/[^] http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2202697[^] http://www.presstv.ir/detail/205622.html[^] http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/10/10/most-occupy-iowa-protesters-will-demand-jury-trial-attorney-says/[^] Best for last. Search for "jury trial". It is from 1999, from the Seattle WTO protests. Specifically says "In this way we are hoping to overwhelm the justic
jschell wrote:
Then exactly what was your point when you said "So why can't Westboro be silenced?"
If any old regulation is sufficient to silence a protest (ie: make the gathering illegal) why has it been so difficult to craft legislation to prevent the westboro protests? The answer is - any law that restricts the ability of Westboro to protest, must meet the requirements of the 1st amendment.
jschell wrote:
"I also understand that the 1st amendment is supreme."
It is. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing controversial about that.
jschell wrote:
"Yeah, mostly it does."
Mostly, it does.
jschell wrote:
1st amendment nullifies (or some other word that means invalidates/removes/etc) other laws.
Nothing is automatic, if that's what you are implying. But there is a process, if a law is challenged and the courts determine that the law violates some aspect of the constitution (for example, the 1st amendment), that law is struct down.
jschell wrote:
this is a strategy for protesters
So what? I know that there are any number of strategies use by different groups of protesters at different times. Those links are all very interesting, proving a point that I have not disputed. Yet it doesn't support your claim that anyones case was actually dismissed because the courts were overwhelmed. Nor is that any proof that UC Davis students gathered for the purpose of being arrested or that they were not prosecuted because the courts would have been overwhelmed by the one or two dozens arrests that were made on the quad.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
No, I haven't refused to accept the possibility. I have repeatedly stated that the mere fact of arrest is not enough.
Yet breaking a law to get arrested is a protest strategy. And since I am sure you will claim otherwise I will repost the following from a protester admitting to participating in exactly that strategy. http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2202697[^]
Majerus wrote:
This is simply our own personal opionions
Call it what you will. I know how many protesters there have been and how few get arrested. I know what they get arrested for and I am often aware of the outcome of their legal proceedings. I also enjoy reading about protest strategies when I come across them. Nothing I have seen supports what you are claiming. And I am not going to attempt to research the last 20 years of reading that I have done to demonstrate it to you.
Majerus wrote:
Good for you! I'm suprised you couldn't do better. A couple of people tried to beat traffic tickets.
Either you misunderstood the article or don't understand how to read it. The reported incidents were part of the trial, not the entire thing. For example the following was also part of the trial. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19493803[^]
jschell wrote:
Yet breaking a law to get arrested is a protest strategy.
Yes, it is. But you have not provided any evidence that this was the strategy being used by the UC-Davis students.
jschell wrote:
And since I am sure you will claim otherwise
Well, you're wrong. I agree that this is a strategy that can be used.
jschell wrote:
And I am not going to attempt to research the last 20 years of reading that I have done to demonstrate it to you.
Simply claiming you have extensive knowledge doesn't impress me. You would need to demonstrate that knowledge, and you haven't done so.
jschell wrote:
don't understand how to read it.
You link me a 100 word article that provides no detail beyond a couple of people fighing traffic tickets. If you want to make a larger point, then you will have to do better than this.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
Then exactly what was your point when you said "So why can't Westboro be silenced?"
If any old regulation is sufficient to silence a protest (ie: make the gathering illegal) why has it been so difficult to craft legislation to prevent the westboro protests? The answer is - any law that restricts the ability of Westboro to protest, must meet the requirements of the 1st amendment.
jschell wrote:
"I also understand that the 1st amendment is supreme."
It is. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing controversial about that.
jschell wrote:
"Yeah, mostly it does."
Mostly, it does.
jschell wrote:
1st amendment nullifies (or some other word that means invalidates/removes/etc) other laws.
Nothing is automatic, if that's what you are implying. But there is a process, if a law is challenged and the courts determine that the law violates some aspect of the constitution (for example, the 1st amendment), that law is struct down.
jschell wrote:
this is a strategy for protesters
So what? I know that there are any number of strategies use by different groups of protesters at different times. Those links are all very interesting, proving a point that I have not disputed. Yet it doesn't support your claim that anyones case was actually dismissed because the courts were overwhelmed. Nor is that any proof that UC Davis students gathered for the purpose of being arrested or that they were not prosecuted because the courts would have been overwhelmed by the one or two dozens arrests that were made on the quad.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
If any old regulation is sufficient to silence a protest (ie: make the gathering illegal) why has it been so difficult to craft legislation to prevent the westboro protests? The answer is - any law that restricts the ability of Westboro to protest, must meet the requirements of the 1st amendment.
Sigh... That would be meaningful if... 1. I didn't already say the same thing. 2. It had anything to do with what I said otherwise. 3. It had anything to do with arrest of protesters. The arrests of most protesters are based on laws that already existed which were enacted WITHOUT cause by protests. As an example use restrictions in parks are likely enacted for some are all of the following a. To prevent crime b. To protect local inhabits from undue noise c. To allow the different types of use of the park d. public health. The post Westboro laws were enacted as the result of the previous protests. For Westboro there is a cause and effect. For the other cases there isn't. It is plain and simple.
Majerus wrote:
It is. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing controversial about that.
You are ignoring the point of what I am quoting and merely restating what I did quote.
Majerus wrote:
Nothing is automatic, if that's what you are implying. But there is a process, if a law is challenged and the courts determine that the law violates some aspect of the constitution (for example, the 1st amendment), that law is struct down.
I agree. And courts have not struck down use restrictions. Regardless of the counter claims by protesters, and you, that those laws do not apply to those people.
Majerus wrote:
Yet it doesn't support your claim that anyones case was actually dismissed because the courts were overwhelmed.
Multiple different protests groups, the people actually doing the protests, think it works.
Majerus wrote:
Nor is that any proof that UC Davis students gathered for the purpose of being arrested
I didn't claim that they "gathered" for that purpose. And I already told you that at least once. What I said was that the protesters in the VIDEO, at that SPECIFIC moment, knew that they were going to be arrested and knew that for at least long enough
-
jschell wrote:
Yet breaking a law to get arrested is a protest strategy.
Yes, it is. But you have not provided any evidence that this was the strategy being used by the UC-Davis students.
jschell wrote:
And since I am sure you will claim otherwise
Well, you're wrong. I agree that this is a strategy that can be used.
jschell wrote:
And I am not going to attempt to research the last 20 years of reading that I have done to demonstrate it to you.
Simply claiming you have extensive knowledge doesn't impress me. You would need to demonstrate that knowledge, and you haven't done so.
jschell wrote:
don't understand how to read it.
You link me a 100 word article that provides no detail beyond a couple of people fighing traffic tickets. If you want to make a larger point, then you will have to do better than this.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Yes, it is. But you have not provided any evidence that this was the strategy being used by the UC-Davis students.
I can only point to your own ignorance then. I know of numerous strategies used by protesters. The formation of the protesters in the video clearly demonstrates that they expected to be arrested.
Majerus wrote:
You link me a 100 word article that provides no detail beyond a couple of people fighing traffic tickets.
Ignorance again. The article posted PART of TESTIMONY of the trial. The trial was NOT about traffic tickets. Traffic tickets do NOT go to FEDERAL court. The trial was brought on behalf the the Occupy protest movement claiming that their free speech rights were being infringed. The part you are focusing on was testimony from witnesses for the protesters as part of that attempt.
Majerus wrote:
You would need to demonstrate that knowledge, and you haven't done so.
No point - given your inability to understand even the basics a of simple and short article which is completely evident by your claim that traffic tickets are being tried in a federal court.
-
Majerus wrote:
Yes, it is. But you have not provided any evidence that this was the strategy being used by the UC-Davis students.
I can only point to your own ignorance then. I know of numerous strategies used by protesters. The formation of the protesters in the video clearly demonstrates that they expected to be arrested.
Majerus wrote:
You link me a 100 word article that provides no detail beyond a couple of people fighing traffic tickets.
Ignorance again. The article posted PART of TESTIMONY of the trial. The trial was NOT about traffic tickets. Traffic tickets do NOT go to FEDERAL court. The trial was brought on behalf the the Occupy protest movement claiming that their free speech rights were being infringed. The part you are focusing on was testimony from witnesses for the protesters as part of that attempt.
Majerus wrote:
You would need to demonstrate that knowledge, and you haven't done so.
No point - given your inability to understand even the basics a of simple and short article which is completely evident by your claim that traffic tickets are being tried in a federal court.
jschell wrote:
The formation of the protesters in the video clearly demonstrates that they expected to be arrested.
And that is not evidence that the purpose of the protest was to get arrested.
jschell wrote:
Ignorance again.
Nope. This is simply your failure to present your case. You have made broad claims that the first amendment has very little weight. That any city ordinance is enough to silence free speech. Yet you have not provided any evidence to support that very broad claim.
jschell wrote:
The trial was brought on behalf the the Occupy protest movement
Is it? That's not what the article says:"A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by anti-Wall Street protesters claiming Denver authorities violated their rights to free speech." Not the movement, but by some protesters. Not the same thing.
jschell wrote:
The part you are focusing on was testimony from witnesses for the protesters as part of that attempt.
And why shouldn't I? This is the only information about the case provided by the article.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
If any old regulation is sufficient to silence a protest (ie: make the gathering illegal) why has it been so difficult to craft legislation to prevent the westboro protests? The answer is - any law that restricts the ability of Westboro to protest, must meet the requirements of the 1st amendment.
Sigh... That would be meaningful if... 1. I didn't already say the same thing. 2. It had anything to do with what I said otherwise. 3. It had anything to do with arrest of protesters. The arrests of most protesters are based on laws that already existed which were enacted WITHOUT cause by protests. As an example use restrictions in parks are likely enacted for some are all of the following a. To prevent crime b. To protect local inhabits from undue noise c. To allow the different types of use of the park d. public health. The post Westboro laws were enacted as the result of the previous protests. For Westboro there is a cause and effect. For the other cases there isn't. It is plain and simple.
Majerus wrote:
It is. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing controversial about that.
You are ignoring the point of what I am quoting and merely restating what I did quote.
Majerus wrote:
Nothing is automatic, if that's what you are implying. But there is a process, if a law is challenged and the courts determine that the law violates some aspect of the constitution (for example, the 1st amendment), that law is struct down.
I agree. And courts have not struck down use restrictions. Regardless of the counter claims by protesters, and you, that those laws do not apply to those people.
Majerus wrote:
Yet it doesn't support your claim that anyones case was actually dismissed because the courts were overwhelmed.
Multiple different protests groups, the people actually doing the protests, think it works.
Majerus wrote:
Nor is that any proof that UC Davis students gathered for the purpose of being arrested
I didn't claim that they "gathered" for that purpose. And I already told you that at least once. What I said was that the protesters in the VIDEO, at that SPECIFIC moment, knew that they were going to be arrested and knew that for at least long enough
jschell wrote:
The post Westboro laws were enacted as the result of the previous protests.
For Westboro there is a cause and effect. For the other cases there isn't. It is plain and simple.No, actually isn't that simple. If restricted use trumps free speech, as you argue, then it doesn't matter what the motives were behind the law. Noise restrictions are noise restrictions and Westboro would be subject to them as would any future protest from any other group. Just because Westboro protest once before the law passed would not exempt them in the future.
jschell wrote:
Multiple different protests groups, the people actually doing the protests, think it works.
Still not evidence that it actually does work or how this is relevant to the UC-Davis case.
jschell wrote:
Regardless of the counter claims by protesters, and you, that those laws do not apply to those people.
Well, your wrong about that.[^] Note the 3 court cases at the top of the post. Protesters were exempted from a variety of laws.
jschell wrote:
I didn't claim that they "gathered" for that purpose. And I already told you that at least once.
If this doesn't apply to the UC-Davis protest, why bring it up?
jschell wrote:
What I said was that the protesters in the VIDEO, at that SPECIFIC moment, knew that they were going to be arrested
And I've already aknowledged that they knew that they were going to be arrested - the cops told them so. But still not evidence that any law was broken. OK, we've gone round and round on this. You say the UC-Davis protesters were arrested because they broke the law, even though you can't cite any law that was broken, you can't point to any convictions resulting from the arrests. They only "evidence" that you can present is the fact that the students knew that they were going to be arrested.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
The post Westboro laws were enacted as the result of the previous protests.
For Westboro there is a cause and effect. For the other cases there isn't. It is plain and simple.No, actually isn't that simple. If restricted use trumps free speech, as you argue, then it doesn't matter what the motives were behind the law. Noise restrictions are noise restrictions and Westboro would be subject to them as would any future protest from any other group. Just because Westboro protest once before the law passed would not exempt them in the future.
jschell wrote:
Multiple different protests groups, the people actually doing the protests, think it works.
Still not evidence that it actually does work or how this is relevant to the UC-Davis case.
jschell wrote:
Regardless of the counter claims by protesters, and you, that those laws do not apply to those people.
Well, your wrong about that.[^] Note the 3 court cases at the top of the post. Protesters were exempted from a variety of laws.
jschell wrote:
I didn't claim that they "gathered" for that purpose. And I already told you that at least once.
If this doesn't apply to the UC-Davis protest, why bring it up?
jschell wrote:
What I said was that the protesters in the VIDEO, at that SPECIFIC moment, knew that they were going to be arrested
And I've already aknowledged that they knew that they were going to be arrested - the cops told them so. But still not evidence that any law was broken. OK, we've gone round and round on this. You say the UC-Davis protesters were arrested because they broke the law, even though you can't cite any law that was broken, you can't point to any convictions resulting from the arrests. They only "evidence" that you can present is the fact that the students knew that they were going to be arrested.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
No, actually isn't that simple. If restricted use trumps free speech, as you argue, then it doesn't matter what the motives were behind the law. Noise restrictions are noise restrictions and Westboro would be subject to them as would any future protest from any other group. Just because Westboro protest once before the law passed would not exempt them in the future.
Wrong. You need to learn more about the legal system and the how the constitution impacts it.
Majerus wrote:
Well, your wrong about that.[^]
Note the 3 court cases at the top of the post. Protesters were exempted from a variety of laws.Irrelevant. If I go back far enough police use to routinely beat and shoot people for doing exactly what you claim now - protesting. I am not referring to 1910 nor 1950 nor even 1960. I am referring to the last 30 years of protests. And cases which ARE relevant to that period and which SHOW that use restrictions are relevant. - Supreme court: Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence (1984) Result: National Park Service is allowed to restrict sleeping in a public park and it does not infringe on freedom of speech - Supreme court: Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) Result: Regulation about noise level was allowed and it does not infringe on freedom of speech. And there are other Supreme Court cases and numerous federal cases (and I already cited one of those.)
Majerus wrote:
nd I've already aknowledged that they knew that they were going to be arrested - the cops told them so. But still not evidence that any law was broken.
That however has nothing to do with you specifically said and what I specifically quoted.
Majerus wrote:
They only "evidence" that you can present is the fact that the students knew that they were going to be arrested.
And you claim that the only way a law is ever broken if someone is convicted for it. Which of course means that murders who are not convicted or not brought to trial never broke a law. Presumably you
-
jschell wrote:
Yet breaking a law to get arrested is a protest strategy.
Yes, it is. But you have not provided any evidence that this was the strategy being used by the UC-Davis students.
jschell wrote:
And since I am sure you will claim otherwise
Well, you're wrong. I agree that this is a strategy that can be used.
jschell wrote:
And I am not going to attempt to research the last 20 years of reading that I have done to demonstrate it to you.
Simply claiming you have extensive knowledge doesn't impress me. You would need to demonstrate that knowledge, and you haven't done so.
jschell wrote:
don't understand how to read it.
You link me a 100 word article that provides no detail beyond a couple of people fighing traffic tickets. If you want to make a larger point, then you will have to do better than this.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Yes, it is. But you have not provided any evidence that this was the strategy being used by the UC-Davis students.
If the students in the video had been sitting/standing in small groups then it would be apparent to me, but presumably not you, that they had not been utilizing a strategy that involved getting arrested. Again, to me, since the video makes it obvious that they were using a protest tactic specifically designed for situations where they were going to be arrested that they were in fact doing something that they knew was against the law. I suppose I just think that the protesters were more intelligent than you seem to think, since my opinion is that they knew what they were doing where you seem to think that they were oblivious.
Majerus wrote:
Simply claiming you have extensive knowledge doesn't impress me. You would need to demonstrate that knowledge, and you haven't done so.
I already posted one link that showed a federal court dismissing free speech infringement claims. And, since I was curious myself, I researched several other Supreme Court cases (cited in my other post) that demonstrate use restriction enforcement is not nullified by free speech. And to be clear I already knew what the law was, I was just curious as to the details.
Majerus wrote:
You link me a 100 word article that provides no detail beyond a couple of people fighing traffic tickets. If you want to make a larger point, then you will have to do better than this.
Nonsense. Your ridiculous statement that traffic tickets would be adjudicated in a federal court makes it clear that you had absolutely no idea what the link was referring to. Could be that you didn't actually read it. Could be that you lack comprehension skills. Could be that you don't have any knowledge about how the US legal system works. Regardless of the cause your statement stands as being ridiculous. Mine stands that, as per that link (and the other) that a FEDERAL court dismissed a lawsuit claiming free speech infringement. NO infringement occurred, but rather use restrictions were enforced (such as the legitimate issuance of traffic tickets.)
-
Majerus wrote:
No, actually isn't that simple. If restricted use trumps free speech, as you argue, then it doesn't matter what the motives were behind the law. Noise restrictions are noise restrictions and Westboro would be subject to them as would any future protest from any other group. Just because Westboro protest once before the law passed would not exempt them in the future.
Wrong. You need to learn more about the legal system and the how the constitution impacts it.
Majerus wrote:
Well, your wrong about that.[^]
Note the 3 court cases at the top of the post. Protesters were exempted from a variety of laws.Irrelevant. If I go back far enough police use to routinely beat and shoot people for doing exactly what you claim now - protesting. I am not referring to 1910 nor 1950 nor even 1960. I am referring to the last 30 years of protests. And cases which ARE relevant to that period and which SHOW that use restrictions are relevant. - Supreme court: Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence (1984) Result: National Park Service is allowed to restrict sleeping in a public park and it does not infringe on freedom of speech - Supreme court: Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) Result: Regulation about noise level was allowed and it does not infringe on freedom of speech. And there are other Supreme Court cases and numerous federal cases (and I already cited one of those.)
Majerus wrote:
nd I've already aknowledged that they knew that they were going to be arrested - the cops told them so. But still not evidence that any law was broken.
That however has nothing to do with you specifically said and what I specifically quoted.
Majerus wrote:
They only "evidence" that you can present is the fact that the students knew that they were going to be arrested.
And you claim that the only way a law is ever broken if someone is convicted for it. Which of course means that murders who are not convicted or not brought to trial never broke a law. Presumably you
-
Majerus wrote:
Yes, it is. But you have not provided any evidence that this was the strategy being used by the UC-Davis students.
If the students in the video had been sitting/standing in small groups then it would be apparent to me, but presumably not you, that they had not been utilizing a strategy that involved getting arrested. Again, to me, since the video makes it obvious that they were using a protest tactic specifically designed for situations where they were going to be arrested that they were in fact doing something that they knew was against the law. I suppose I just think that the protesters were more intelligent than you seem to think, since my opinion is that they knew what they were doing where you seem to think that they were oblivious.
Majerus wrote:
Simply claiming you have extensive knowledge doesn't impress me. You would need to demonstrate that knowledge, and you haven't done so.
I already posted one link that showed a federal court dismissing free speech infringement claims. And, since I was curious myself, I researched several other Supreme Court cases (cited in my other post) that demonstrate use restriction enforcement is not nullified by free speech. And to be clear I already knew what the law was, I was just curious as to the details.
Majerus wrote:
You link me a 100 word article that provides no detail beyond a couple of people fighing traffic tickets. If you want to make a larger point, then you will have to do better than this.
Nonsense. Your ridiculous statement that traffic tickets would be adjudicated in a federal court makes it clear that you had absolutely no idea what the link was referring to. Could be that you didn't actually read it. Could be that you lack comprehension skills. Could be that you don't have any knowledge about how the US legal system works. Regardless of the cause your statement stands as being ridiculous. Mine stands that, as per that link (and the other) that a FEDERAL court dismissed a lawsuit claiming free speech infringement. NO infringement occurred, but rather use restrictions were enforced (such as the legitimate issuance of traffic tickets.)
-
Since I am sick of uncivil tone, We are done.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass