Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Edited becuase who cares.

Was gonna post a response, but...then I read the thread again.

This thread is starting to make my brain hurt. Or possibly that's a developing aneurysm from the sheer number of "wtf" moments from all sides of the argument...

I think I'm gonna go play Arkham asylum instead. Maybe we should all cool down in the mean time and stop just making excuses to attack anyone who dares disagree with us?

Melissia wrote:Maybe we should all cool down in the mean time and stop just making excuses to attack anyone who dares disagree with us?

Preposterous! What do you think this is, NOT the internet?!

Platuan4th wrote:

Melissia wrote:Maybe we should all cool down in the mean time and stop just making excuses to attack anyone who dares disagree with us?

Preposterous! What do you think this is, NOT the internet?!

Logic?


On MY Dakka?

When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?

Really? Really?

Reading is fundamental
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/the-truth-about-the-occupy-media-blackout

http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/journalists-arrested-during-media-blackout-police-evict-occupy-wall-street-protesters-new-york-

TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?

Really? Really?

Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?

dsteingass wrote:Reading is fundamental
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/the-truth-about-the-occupy-media-blackout

http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/journalists-arrested-during-media-blackout-police-evict-occupy-wall-street-protesters-new-york-

Your first link is biased trash and the second is worse. From the NPR version of your second link:

Deputy NYPD Inspector Kim Royster said that four journalists were among those arrested at the church-owned park and that protesters clipped a chain-link fence to get in. "It was private property and there was signage that said no trespassing," Royster said.

A protester at the site confirmed the account, saying protesters tore a hole in a chain-link fence to get into the park after the Zuccotti encampment was cleared.

CptJake wrote:

TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?

Really? Really?

Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?

I believe the Constitution covers this:

Quote from the 1st Amendment of the Constitutuion of the United States:
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.

Text italicized for clarity.

FITZZ wrote:

CptJake wrote:

TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?

Really? Really?

Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?

C'mon Cap, just because a protest might take place outside of a bought and payed for " legal play pen" doesn't make it any less of a protest.

Easy E wrote:I believe the Constitution covers this:

Quote from the 1st Amendment of the Constitutuion of the United States:
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.

Text italicized for clarity.

It says right to assemble

not right to assemble tents

and it CERTAINLY doesn't say right to actively prevent a legal police action.

The right to peacefully assemble was not violated in this case. Note that the right to peacefully assemble does not imply immunity from breaking laws or infringing on others' rights.

Also note that having protests file the proper paperwork, pay required fees, and otherwise obey the law has been upheld many times in many courts. I probably should italicize that for clarity, but suspect it wouldn't help.

The supreme court has ruled many many times that the first amendment still allows for restrictions of the time, place and manner of expression.

Also, easy E, if it was so simple, why did we just argue for 6 pages about it?

Well, I'm sure the courts will get it sorted out sometime in the next decade to a century.

Just remember in the short term kids;

$$$= Speech
Tents and signs= Non-speech.

Simple really.

FITZZ wrote:

CptJake wrote:

TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?

Really? Really?

Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?

C'mon Cap, just because a protest might take place outside of a bought and payed for " legal play pen" doesn't make it any less of a protest.

During the RNC in my town, lot's of people had the proper permits, that were then yanked at the last minute. That's why a free Rage Against the Machine concert ended up getting shut down.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/rage-against-the-machine-lead-march-to-rnc-after-police-shut-down-impromptu-show-20080902

Permits are the tools of the authorities to delegitimize a protest. They can giveth and they can taketh away just as easily.

Easy E wrote:Well, I'm sure the courts will get it sorted out sometime in the next decade to a century.

Just remember in the short term kids;

$$$= Speech
Tents and signs= Non-speech.

Simple really.

Yeah, a shanty town is not speech. Sorry dude, it's just not. The protest is speech, but the camp is not speech. The camp is a camp. You don't have a right to squat anywhere you want. You still have to follow the normal park rules while you are there. You can't just do whatever and hide behind the "oh but speech" shield. The park still has rules.

Tell that to the predatory lenders who still haven't been punished.

dsteingass wrote:Reading is fundamental
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/the-truth-about-the-occupy-media-blackout

http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/journalists-arrested-during-media-blackout-police-evict-occupy-wall-street-protesters-new-york-

Dave I don't really get what you are driving at here.
Link from the second one:
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-police-raid-eviction
Reads like fiction...I won't say it is or isn't either way..less believable things have actually happened.

Easy E wrote:Tell that to the predatory lenders who still haven't been punished.

I don't care.

Protesting against something bad doesn't mean your protest doesn't have to follow the rules. You can be protesting against literal baby killing, you still have to follow the rules, dude. Don't try to change the subject.

Easy E wrote:Tell that to the predatory lenders who still haven't been punished.

You mean the ones that followed established rules and laws regarding lending?

Uncaring doesn't mean illegal.

It's nice when the rules and their enforcement only apply to 'some' people. Provided you aren't "some" people.

Mention before. There's protestors and there's protesters with intent. I rather deal with protestors. A protestor will use common sense and play within the rules IE leave the park at closing time and be first in line at opening to continue protest. Does not impede foot/vehicle traffic, Does not impede private business, Does not escalate a situation. and Does not abuse the situation. Simple enough isn't it. MLK pulled it off quite well.

OWS well.There were protestors ,yes, were there protestors with intent, yes. When the situation becomes tense your going to have someone martry themselves for the "cause" knowing he/she going to get their "5 minute" of prime time. Yes the media will up the notch on the tension when law enforcement is present. Either way someone going to get to get a brain fart and do something stupid. Its human nature.

Embed reporters for the military and news team at a protest rally is way different animal. Cptjake nailed it on his clarification. I see a lot of people just see the "protest" itself and not the ordinance/law thats has been in place way before OWS started up.

edit

WTB automatic dakkadakka spell checker

Easy E wrote:It's nice when the rules and their enforcement only apply to 'some' people. Provided you aren't "some" people.

Please lose the angst and actually argue some points. Saying you can't have a shanty town on quasi-public land does not mean we love wall street.

Just because I have a position you disagree with doesn't mean I'm against you in all other areas. Please don't turn my position into a big evil "they" and please don't try to steer the conversation into a pet subject that has nothing to do with the incident we're talking about.

This is all just RAW vs. RAI writ large on a societal scale.

Jihadin wrote:Mention before. There's protestors and there's protesters with intent. I rather deal with protestors. A protestor will use common sense and play within the rules IE leave the park at closing time and be first in line at opening to continue protest. Does not impede foot/vehicle traffic, Does not impede private business, Does not escalate a situation. and Does not abuse the situation. Simple enough isn't it. MLK pulled it off quite well.

Alternately, a protest can purposefully break the law through civil disobedience. For instance, if they wanted to go actually block a road on purpose so that they would all get arrested to make a point, I am actually ok with that. That's just another tool in the protest playbook.

But don't break the law and pretend you didn't. Don't block a street and claim you were totally in the right. That just makes you look silly.

Easy E wrote:This is all just RAW vs. RAI writ large on a societal scale.

Ah.

I see.

Now I get it.

Ghostbuster button engaged.

CptJake wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

CptJake wrote:

TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?

Really? Really?

Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?

C'mon Cap, just because a protest might take place outside of a bought and payed for " legal play pen" doesn't make it any less of a protest.

Fitzz, of course it is still a protest, and can be very effective. But the protesters know they face consequences such as arrest. Everyone hase freedom of choice, no one as freedom from consequences.

FITZZ wrote:
I agree with what your saying man, simply pointing out that the " legality" of the protest doesn't minamilize it's validity...through out the world and throughout history many " illegal" protest have effected change.

And the police breakup had nothing to do with the legality of the protest, but the legality of the squatting in a private park.

Stupid illegal Tea Party didn't get permits to dress like local natives or to dump tea in the harbor. Buncha criminals don't know how to protest.