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.

Crablezworth wrote:Would anyone be talking about the occupy movement if the occupation side of it had not occured?

Which occupation, the park or the street?

Republicans opposed to corruption? Would these be the same ones that think money is free speech and corporations are people?

Wrong time frame Crable. 1700's and 2011 are two different animal. What was in play at that time is not in play today

Crablezworth wrote:Republicans opposed to corruption? Would these be the same ones that think money is free speech and corporations are people?

Republicans who wanted to form a Republic vs Monarchists in the 1780's. As opposed to Republicans that started the civil rights movement and ended slavery, as opposed to the Republicans that support legislatively controlling morality.

Easy E wrote:So Unalienable rights can not be surrendered, sold, or transferred. Great!

However, they can still be deprived from you.

Actually, no, they can't. I cannot deprive you of freedom, in the general sense, for example. I can deprive you of the freedom to leave a certain room without great effort by locking you inside it, but you would still have freedom to do things within that room, and therefore freedom.

The question, ultimately, is not about what your inalienable rights are, but what facets of your inalienable rights are to be protected by either government fiat, or social institution.

Easy E wrote:
Did the ideas of the Declaration of Independence end after the revolution was over, or is it still relevant today?

What are the ideas of the Declaration? I mean, aside from the specific grievances levied against the British crown, its incredibly vague.

Tents aren't speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyone_I_Have_Ever_Slept_With_1963–1995

Kilkrazy wrote:Tents aren't speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyone_I_Have_Ever_Slept_With_1963–1995

If it had been constructed somewhere where tents are not allowed, it would not have been protected speech. The right of the state to regulate the time, place and manner of speech that is to be protected has been held up in many supreme court cases.

Just because you are protesting doesn't mean you magically get to ignore all other laws and rules for where you are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:A quick summary for those keeping score at home...

Camp for profits= Good
Camp for political reasons= bad

$$$$ is speech= Good
Tents are speech= Bad

Letter of the Law= Good
Unalienable Rights= Bad

We were doing pretty well discussing this and now you are backsliding into black and white strawmen and cheap points again. Please stop. You are arguing with people who have functioning brains and real opinions.

Especially the first one which we've explained our position on several times. You're being willfully obtuse about what we actually think.

Rented Tritium wrote:
If it had been constructed somewhere where tents are not allowed, it would not have been protected speech. The right of the state to regulate the time, place and manner of speech that is to be protected has been held up in many supreme court cases.

Not to beat a dead horse, but that's solid ground for the restriction of corporate "speech".

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
If it had been constructed somewhere where tents are not allowed, it would not have been protected speech. The right of the state to regulate the time, place and manner of speech that is to be protected has been held up in many supreme court cases.

Not to beat a dead horse, but that's solid ground for the restriction of corporate "speech".

Yes it is. It's grounds for restricting corporate speech in the general sense, that is, time place and manner. But the corporate speech that is ACTUALLY up for debate right now is corporate political speech.

Thing is, CONTENT-based restrictions are not ok. You can restrict based on where and when and how it is being said, but you can't restrict based on WHAT is being said. That's the core of citizen's united.

I'm going to post this ruling again and maybe this time some of you will actually read it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

The ruling is not exactly what you think it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, before you put scare quotes around corporate speech, remember that newspapers and tv stations are corporations.

Would tents be considered speech if they were covered with corporate sponsorship logos?

How about protesters? If they had signs brought to you by Johsnon and Johnson would it be okay if they blocked a sidewalk in a quasi-public park?

Rented Tritium wrote:
Yes it is. It's grounds for restricting corporate speech in the general sense, that is, time place and manner. But the corporate speech that is ACTUALLY up for debate right now is corporate political speech.

Thing is, CONTENT-based restrictions are not ok. You can restrict based on where and when and how it is being said, but you can't restrict based on WHAT is being said. That's the core of citizen's united.

No, the question for debate is whether or not corporate speech falls under the "time, place, and manner" restrictions already imposed. Granted, that is not exclusive of what is being said, but neither is "Fire!" in a movie theater. No one would be upset if I yelled "Popcorn!" for example.

Rented Tritium wrote:
I'm going to post this ruling again and maybe this time some of you will actually read it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

The ruling is not exactly what you think it is.

What do you think I think it is?

I've read the ruling, I read it when it was made.

Stop using it as a beat stick, it's lazy, and points to a willful attempt at misunderstanding objections.

Burning a flag is free speech.

Easy E wrote:
Would tents be considered speech if they were covered with corporate sponsorship logos?

How about protesters? If they had signs brought to you by Johsnon and Johnson would it be okay if they blocked a sidewalk in a quasi-public park?

Nope. Those wouldn't be protected either because they are still doing it somewhere that they aren't allowed to be.

It could be Picasso himself sitting there, he's not allowed to just set up shop where he isn't allowed to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Burning a flag is free speech.

Yep.

But burning a flag in a park where fire isn't allowed is still illegal.

Speech is not a get out of all other laws card.

No issue in burning the US flag but if you light up the flag right by a gas pump don't be suprise to see me stomping the fire out and then straight out throw in a few at you for screaming how I deny your right to protest. You light up the flag be safe about it. Actually had someone do that at Ft. Bragg

I'm just making the point that protests do not have to be speaking.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm just making the point that protests do not have to be speaking.

Yes? And?

I never said otherwise.

I'm making a general point.

The flag burning issue is pretty much a ignition for an explosive situation. Yes your allowed to burn the flag and yes your allowed to press charges against anyone assualting you for burning the flag. Its a no issue. I know your making a general point of the flag burning. Question is when? When should you burn the flag? What perception do you want if you burn a flag at a protest rally? What political message are you sending when you burn the flag. Has OWS burn the US flag yet? I don't think OWS has gone that far and kind of doubt they will. Since the perception of a US flag burn is tied with the middle east. Also if one going to go out and do it at a protest I hope he/she look up open flame laws or whatever. Also use common sense

Rented Tritium wrote:
It could be Picasso himself sitting there, he's not allowed to just set up shop where he isn't allowed to be.

Which is ironic considering America's foreign policy and military tendencies...

Thats a whole new thread there...one I'm sure will get locked with quickness.

Jubear wrote:Hang on, I thought protesting was legal in the US? I dont get it they allow those idots to picket servicemen funerals but if your sitting in a park your commiting a crime?

That's what I said! It is horrible that people who died for the U.S. get heckled by people. When in reality then should be whipped for that kind of hate. It's sick. Yet if want to peacefully protest you get beat like a dog. Sad state of affairs but the more people who see these things stand up and protest. Simply shaking the bees next. If people aren't allowed to peacefully protest they will become violent. That is something no one wants to see again. =(

The difference is that WBC doesn't break any laws.

They're despicable, horrendous people who should be purged from society, but they don't break laws when they protest so they don't get pepper sprayed. Like they ought to.

Seperate your personal feeling from your professionalism..

Right. WBC are careful not to break the laws, but they are horrible people.

Martin Luther King Jr. was, I hope we'll agree, a good person, but broke some laws in the course of his protesting and was jailed for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail

The OWS should build their tents out of money, problem solved.

The OWS should build their tents out of money, problem solved.

Thats a major crime spree a lot of us be on.....

Jihadin wrote:The flag burning issue is pretty much a ignition for an explosive situation. Yes your allowed to burn the flag and yes your allowed to press charges against anyone assualting you for burning the flag. Its a no issue. I know your making a general point of the flag burning. Question is when? When should you burn the flag? What perception do you want if you burn a flag at a protest rally? What political message are you sending when you burn the flag. Has OWS burn the US flag yet? I don't think OWS has gone that far and kind of doubt they will. Since the perception of a US flag burn is tied with the middle east. Also if one going to go out and do it at a protest I hope he/she look up open flame laws or whatever. Also use common sense

I'm making a general point that "free speech" does not apply only to speaking, it can also apply to tents and flags.

Of course the issue of how and when to protest is key. I would argue that an effective protest needs to be mildly illegal or at least very annoying to the powers that be.

Take ticket strikes and mass cycling protests for examples.

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - Anti-Wall Street protesters in Minneapolis will be able to affix signs and posters to the plaza outside the Hennepin County Government Center, but their request to use tents without law enforcement interference was denied.

However, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle says the protesters may continue to challenge the county's restriction on sleeping and on the use of tents. He ordered both sides to participate in settlement talks.

The protesters say Hennepin County's rules against having tents, using electricity, writing with chalk, or posting signs are unconstitutional and are violating their free speech rights.

The county argues its restrictions are reasonable, saying no group has a First Amendment right to use the plaza as a private campground.

Protesters have been at the downtown Minneapolis plaza since Oct. 7.


Read more: Judge: OccupyMN Can Have Signs, No Tents http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/minnesota/judge-occupymn-can-have-signs-no-tents-nov-23-2011#ixzz1eqTB1Qx9

refering about this?

Rented Tritium wrote:
Speech is not a get out of all other laws card.

So I would be free to ban the moving of lips?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:
Martin Luther King Jr. was, I hope we'll agree, a good person, but broke some laws in the course of his protesting and was jailed for it.l

There is a long tradition of intentionally breaking unjust laws in order to protest them.

Maybe some people need to look up the laws that MLK were trying to change?