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.
I'm merely trying to point to the fact that sometimes it is right to break laws. If you don't think that this is as important as times in the past when laws were broken then fine, but it doesn't change my belief that this is part of a long history of civil disobedience and law-breaking that have helped to make your country what it is today.
Jihadin, you use the phrase 'zero threat status' alot, but who is being threatened? The police have armour and weapons, how are they being threatened by non-violent demonstrators?
Kanluwen wrote:But then again, it's nowhere near as fun to spell out the whole situation as it is to just put out leading statements and let readers assume whatever they want.
You missed the point. The point was that one way to clamp down on free speech, which you appear to endorse by approving of "free speech zones", was to say you have free speech and then put up artificial roadblocks to prevent people from actually protesting. All the benefits of claiming to be a free society, none of the hassles of dealing with dirty hippies.
Since the URL I provided earlier was less specific than I intended, here is another example of a permit and $1 million in liability insurance being required to protest, despite the fact the latter is probably unconstitutional.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
murdog wrote:I'm merely trying to point to the fact that sometimes it is right to break laws. If you don't think that this is as important as times in the past when laws were broken then fine, but it doesn't change my belief that this is part of a long history of civil disobedience and law-breaking that have helped to make your country what it is today.
Except once again, it has nothing to do with the importance but the context.
Martin Luther King Junior and the Civil Rights Movement? They knew what they were doing was illegal. They did it, knowing they faced threats of violence, incarceration, or in some cases even being murdered by staunch opponents to the movement.
The Founding Fathers? They knew what they were doing was treason. They did it anyways--not because they were going to cry foul when the British turned up to tell them "Don't do that!" but because they felt what they were doing was the "right thing to do".
So stop associating the members of this movement who are crying foul whenever they get evicted from their little tent cities with the Founding Fathers and the Civil Rights Movement. They believe they are protected by the First Amendment in every action they do, when in reality it simply protects their right to assemble and protest--not to squat on public lands.
Jihadin, you use the phrase 'zero threat status' alot, but who is being threatened? The police have armour and weapons, how are they being threatened by non-violent demonstrators?
Yeah...riot armour is so good.
Riot gear is basically hockey pads with the potential for a ballistic insert that might stop a 9mm pistol. Most won't have such things though, and be as I said: hockey pads.
Riot gear is not an "end all, be all" immunity to violence. If someone hurls a brick at them--it will hurt them. If someone stabs them--it will hurt them. It's basically good for stopping blunt force trauma and that's about it.
So please don't pretend that the police can't be injured just because they have "armour on". When they are outnumbered as much as they were, if the crowd had decided to turn violent--those officers could very well have been severely injured.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:But then again, it's nowhere near as fun to spell out the whole situation as it is to just put out leading statements and let readers assume whatever they want.
You missed the point. The point was that one way to clamp down on free speech, which you appear to endorse by approving of "free speech zones", was to say you have free speech and then put up artificial roadblocks to prevent people from actually protesting. All the benefits of claiming to be a free society, none of the hassles of dealing with dirty hippies.
Since the URL I provided earlier was less specific than I intended, here is another example of a permit and $1 million in liability insurance being required to protest, despite the fact the latter is probably unconstitutional.
So what you're saying is that there is some great big conspiracy for these liability insurance policies?
By the way: all the second link says is that those rules cannot be unwritten requirements.
There's no Constitutional issue if the city ordinances actually say that you are required to have a $1 million in liability insurance policy(which is for the entire group, mind you).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/20 20:37:45
murdog wrote:No, but I think that this tendency to demand that protesters only be allowed to demonstrate in certain places, at certain times, and only in certain ways is a dangerous path to be on, and one that is unsustainable in my view.
So you think it's wrong to restrict the time, the manner and the place that protests happen?
Because I could BURY you in caselaw on this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The liability insurance wasn't required to protest, it was required to rent the park overnight.
It's a rule that's there so people can have rock concerns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/20 20:45:31
Kanluwen wrote:So what you're saying is that there is some great big conspiracy for these liability insurance policies?
By the way: all the second link says is that those rules cannot be unwritten requirements.
There's no Constitutional issue if the city ordinances actually say that you are required to have a $1 million in liability insurance policy(which is for the entire group, mind you).
Please read the link before commenting. You clearly only skimmed the first paragraph judging by the fact you seem to think that the fact it was unwritten was important.
The Davie insurance requirement does not amount to a nominal charge. It forces the Klan to acquire a large amount of insurance coverage, namely $1,000,000. Therefore, the requirement is unconstitutional under the Eleventh Circuit's reading of Cox because the cost of that coverage may be, as in this case, larger than a nominal fee. Moreover, this requirement is not related to the costs incurred by Davie in administering the rally. Furthermore, although the current insurance coverage requirement is set at one million dollars, there is no written limitation as to the size of the insurance requirement that might be demanded by the town. See Walsh, 774 F.2d at 1523. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not delineated the dollar amount of a nominal fee, the Court finds that the cost of the $1,000,000 liability insurance coverage exceeds a nominal amount.
B. Burden on Poorly-Financed Groups
In addition, indigent groups or persons who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly and, as a consequence of the added costs of insurance, are unable to pay such costs, are denied an equal opportunity to be heard. There is no evidence that the Davie insurance requirement contains a provision exempting those individuals or groups who cannot afford to acquire insurance coverage. In this case, Pritchard has testified that he does not have the personal resources needed to purchase the required coverage.
Moreover, the insurance requirement fails to take into account the possibility that the most heinous political groups in American society may find it difficult, if not impossible to actually purchase insurance.4 The failure of the Davie insurance requirement to provide an alternative means of exercising First Amendment rights is unconstitutional. Id. at 1523-24; See also Murdock v. Pennsylvania,319 U.S. 105, 111, 63 S.Ct. 870, 874, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943) ("Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way.").
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/20 20:47:30
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Kanluwen wrote:So what you're saying is that there is some great big conspiracy for these liability insurance policies?
By the way: all the second link says is that those rules cannot be unwritten requirements.
There's no Constitutional issue if the city ordinances actually say that you are required to have a $1 million in liability insurance policy(which is for the entire group, mind you).
Please read the link before commenting. You clearly only skimmed the first paragraph judging by the fact you seem to think that the fact it was unwritten was important.
The Davie insurance requirement does not amount to a nominal charge. It forces the Klan to acquire a large amount of insurance coverage, namely $1,000,000. Therefore, the requirement is unconstitutional under the Eleventh Circuit's reading of Cox because the cost of that coverage may be, as in this case, larger than a nominal fee. Moreover, this requirement is not related to the costs incurred by Davie in administering the rally. Furthermore, although the current insurance coverage requirement is set at one million dollars, there is no written limitation as to the size of the insurance requirement that might be demanded by the town. See Walsh, 774 F.2d at 1523. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not delineated the dollar amount of a nominal fee, the Court finds that the cost of the $1,000,000 liability insurance coverage exceeds a nominal amount.
B. Burden on Poorly-Financed Groups
In addition, indigent groups or persons who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly and, as a consequence of the added costs of insurance, are unable to pay such costs, are denied an equal opportunity to be heard. There is no evidence that the Davie insurance requirement contains a provision exempting those individuals or groups who cannot afford to acquire insurance coverage. In this case, Pritchard has testified that he does not have the personal resources needed to purchase the required coverage.
Moreover, the insurance requirement fails to take into account the possibility that the most heinous political groups in American society may find it difficult, if not impossible to actually purchase insurance.4 The failure of the Davie insurance requirement to provide an alternative means of exercising First Amendment rights is unconstitutional. Id. at 1523-24; See also Murdock v. Pennsylvania,319 U.S. 105, 111, 63 S.Ct. 870, 874, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943) ("Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way.").
Yes, when you rent an otherwise closed space for a private event, you are taking responsibility for what happens there.
Rented Tritium wrote:Yes, when you rent an otherwise closed space for a private event, you are taking responsibility for what happens there.
Please read the link before commenting on it.
Moreover, the location of the proposed rally at the Davie Town Hall is within a traditional public forum; indeed, it is the "archetype of a traditional public forum."
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Kanluwen wrote:So what you're saying is that there is some great big conspiracy for these liability insurance policies?
By the way: all the second link says is that those rules cannot be unwritten requirements.
There's no Constitutional issue if the city ordinances actually say that you are required to have a $1 million in liability insurance policy(which is for the entire group, mind you).
Please read the link before commenting. You clearly only skimmed the first paragraph judging by the fact you seem to think that the fact it was unwritten was important.
No, it's because that is what was considered to be the most important fact for the case.
The Davie insurance requirement does not amount to a nominal charge. It forces the Klan to acquire a large amount of insurance coverage, namely $1,000,000. Therefore, the requirement is unconstitutional under the Eleventh Circuit's reading of Cox because the cost of that coverage may be, as in this case, larger than a nominal fee. Moreover, this requirement is not related to the costs incurred by Davie in administering the rally. Furthermore, although the current insurance coverage requirement is set at one million dollars, there is no written limitation as to the size of the insurance requirement that might be demanded by the town. See Walsh, 774 F.2d at 1523. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not delineated the dollar amount of a nominal fee, the Court finds that the cost of the $1,000,000 liability insurance coverage exceeds a nominal amount.
B. Burden on Poorly-Financed Groups
In addition, indigent groups or persons who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly and, as a consequence of the added costs of insurance, are unable to pay such costs, are denied an equal opportunity to be heard. There is no evidence that the Davie insurance requirement contains a provision exempting those individuals or groups who cannot afford to acquire insurance coverage. In this case, Pritchard has testified that he does not have the personal resources needed to purchase the required coverage.
Moreover, the insurance requirement fails to take into account the possibility that the most heinous political groups in American society may find it difficult, if not impossible to actually purchase insurance.4 The failure of the Davie insurance requirement to provide an alternative means of exercising First Amendment rights is unconstitutional. Id. at 1523-24; See also Murdock v. Pennsylvania,319 U.S. 105, 111, 63 S.Ct. 870, 874, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943) ("Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way.").
I'd suggest you go back and continue reading this case.
Immediately after the point that you seem to find so critical...
C. Content-Neutral Violations
Finally, the Court finds that the Davie insurance requirement is discretionary. Although the amount of insurance coverage required is standard, waiver of
[ 811 F.Supp. 669 ]
such requirement is apparently vested and committed to the unfettered discretion of the Town Council, as demonstrated by the proceedings conducted on January 14, 1993. Moreover, no public comment was permitted at the proceeding from Pritchard, the party most affected by the Council's actions. Such broad discretion constitutes an impermissible prior restraint. Freedman, 380 U.S. at 51, 85 S.Ct. at 735. In this regard, the Court further notes that the lack of written standards pertaining to the insurance requirement, or waiver thereof, permits Davie officials and the Town Council to act with overly broad discretion, in derogation of first amendment rights.
This Court is faced with a situation where a municipality, upon receiving word that a controversial group wishes to stage a rally in town, imposes conditions designed to prevent the rally. In 1977, Nazi party members announced plans to march in Skokie, Illinois, a Jewish suburb of Chicago. A national uproar soon erupted. The village of Skokie immediately enacted ordinances designed to prevent the march. In finding those ordinances unconstitutional, the Seventh Circuit noted that, "[u]nder the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction, not on judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas." Collin v. Smith,578 F.2d 1197, 1203 (7th Cir.1978) (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,418 U.S. 323, 339-40, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974)).
The Court finds that the Davie insurance requirement violates the plaintiffs' first amendment rights. Moreover, the Court finds that the plaintiffs will sustain immediate and irreparable harm if deprived of the free exercise of their first amendment rights and that such harm to the plaintiffs outweighs any potential harm to the defendants.
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b) and (d), Plaintiffs Hank Pritchard and Knights of the Ku Klux Klan's Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants Jack Mackie and the Town of Davie are subject to a temporary restraining order preventing them from requiring that the plaintiffs secure a one million dollar liability policy as a pre-condition to holding the proposed rally on January 18, 1993, at the Davie Town Hall. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiffs need not post security for the issuance of this temporary restraining order. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that further proceedings in this matter shall be before the Honorable Kenneth Ryskamp, the judge to whom this case has been assigned and for whom the undersigned district judge has handled this matter.
What's more, when you look at the footnotes, you have these two key points sticking out:
3. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to resolve an apparent conflict in the Circuits "concerning the constitutionality of charging a fee for a speaker in a public forum." Forsythe County, ___ U.S. at ___, and ___ n. 8, 112 S.Ct. at 2400, and 2400 n. 8. The Court, however, found the permit fee to be content-based, and did not need to address the nominal fee issue. Id. ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2406 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).
Back to Reference
4. Eastern Conn. Citizens Action Group v. Powers,723 F.2d 1050, 1056 n. 2 (2d Cir.1983) (In denying an application for an insurance policy, brokers or underwriters often consider the political beliefs of those who have applied for insurance coverage and the likelihood of adverse publicity).
KK thanks for the clarification on that insurance bit. It didn't sound right. I also agree with the judge on saying no to the waivers. Who was well within legal binds. I don't blame him for it after a OWS protesters groups went "rogue" in some cities. Now...the 43 protesters....whats their next move?
edit
So the insurance bit was actually in play before the attempt. Still doesn't give the right to camp out on park grounds overnight right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/20 20:58:52
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Rented Tritium wrote:Yes, when you rent an otherwise closed space for a private event, you are taking responsibility for what happens there.
Please read the link before commenting on it.
Moreover, the location of the proposed rally at the Davie Town Hall is within a traditional public forum; indeed, it is the "archetype of a traditional public forum."
That's from Pritchard v. Mackie. I'm not arguing Pritchard v. Mackie. I'm talking about the other cases you are trying to APPLY Pritchard v. Mackie TO.
See, they are different because in Pritchard V. Mackie, they weren't trying to use a space that was closed.
Jihadin wrote:So the insurance bit was actually in play before the attempt. Still doesn't give the right to camp out on park grounds overnight right?
No, that's a different deal. They wanted a waiver to be allowed to stay past the curfew. Despite the areas in which several of us disagree, I do agree that camping is not protesting.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
So we've a group of OWS protesters...trying to do the right thing? Actually protesting in a sensible sort of way? Not actually hindering anything? Not being a nuisance and public disturbance. If so...I'm...impressed
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/20 21:09:02
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
It looks like two officers have been placed on administrative leave. My bet is on the Lt. that did the spraying...and...just a wild guess...the fat one that was laughing.
There is another link for those of you who haven't bothered to read about what is going on. Or keep defending an incident that is being regarded as an epic failure by all parties involved.
Just to clarify.
UC Davis considers itself to be a violence free environment. Peaceful debate and dissent are to be tolerated and even encouraged. I know a lot of you can't handle that. By all means, rage on.
Why do the american police resort to violence so fast? They are lucky that they are not in Italy. The spraying of the old lady for example would have had the crowd go "apeshit". But no, since most of the protesters are middle class its just "Police brutality!" and "This is going up on youtube". If you want a protest look for Europe
I like I also like the Greater Good I love to
I think the are cute
But smell
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
I'm a firm believer on the news making correction when they screw up. This and O'reilly making the Malmedy point to name a few
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Radiation wrote: It looks like two officers have been placed on administrative leave. My bet is on the Lt. that did the spraying...and...just a wild guess...the fat one that was laughing.
There is another link for those of you who haven't bothered to read about what is going on. Or keep defending an incident that is being regarded as an epic failure by all parties involved.
Just to clarify.
UC Davis considers itself to be a violence free environment. Peaceful debate and dissent are to be tolerated and even encouraged. I know a lot of you can't handle that. By all means, rage on.
Of course they've been placed on administrative leave. Politics mean that as soon as people start crying about anything, even if it's done legally and by the book, as it was in this case. Pepper spray IS the appropriate response under the "use of force" matrix. If the officers had laid hands on those students to "unlink" them from that human chain they made across the sidewalk in front of the cop car--those officers would be fething crucified. With pepper spray, there's no harm no foul in terms of actual injuries suffered. The effects do fade quickly, and if done properly(and treated properly, as we likely don't see in this video but considering there were police on the scene it's a good bet there were paramedics nearby for just such a contingency) it would just render someone incapable of being a nuisance for a few hours and make them easier to control.
The only real time pepper spray is considered some "excessive use of force" is in the eyes of the media any time it happens and it's not to some very obviously "Bad Guy" and in the eyes of armchair putzes who think they understand police procedure or the effects of things such as pepper spray, of course.
I've been sprayed by pepper spray. Not the little stuff in a can that they sell with whistles for "Women's Safety Measures" either. The riot control stuff, as part of extra credit for one of my law enforcement certification courses. It's no picnic--but it's also not some measure that will have you at death's door.
Space Crusader wrote:Why do the american police resort to violence so fast?
Pepper Spray != violence. I understand that you're Italian and all, but it's not. Pepper Spray is a "less than lethal crowd control measure".
If they were firing rubber baton rounds or tasers into the crowd--yeah, that'd be "violence".
They are lucky that they are not in Italy. The spraying of the old lady for example would have had the crowd go "apeshit".
Breaking the law is breaking the law. Even if she's 84, it doesn't mean that she can't be pepper sprayed with a crowd of protesters.
Hell, I'm sure the ACLU could cook up some bull about her being the target of "ageism" because she wasn't.
But no, since most of the protesters are middle class its just "Police brutality!" and "This is going up on youtube".
If you want a protest look for Europe
Yes. You should totally be proud that you live on a continent which is renowned for its capacity for violence.
Sometimes I wonder if you actually read your posts.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
The anarchist would be proud of a well defined hierarchy of how and when to apply force to maintain order? Odd, I would think he'd be inherently against such an idea.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
At the 2-3 second mark someone said "get the gun to the side" or close to that. Word "gun" is distinctive. If I was a student in front. I'm kicking someone arse in back for for pushing me forward as I'm backing away.
Never ever say "gun" in a situation like that.
LOL aye shorty took a hit and tried to back up but the students in back pressed forward
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/11/20 23:18:28
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
You heard it to Dogma? Just want to be sure someone else heard it
edit
Think selective hearing was in play for law enforcement. Because right after the sentence with the word "gun" was used they started bayonet training.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/20 23:50:46
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
to
are cute
smell