A message for alias - Page 3

alias · 08-18-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Because you know, recounting and making sure who actually democratically won is such a harmful thing.

Provide for me one law that states "protesters preventing someone from going about their daily business" is criminality. Please, I beg of you. Present just one law that says you can voice your opinion, just so long the President's month-long vacation isn't disrupted.

There's one thing that you need to understand Alias. There is a sharp difference between law and order. It is impossible to have a political protest and not "cause a commotion". That's the bloody point of any protest! If you limit free speech like this, you are sacraficing law for order. Under our Constitution, free speech is protected. Free speech that is expected to cause commotion, to disrupt people's lives and tell them an opinion of the masses. Its the point of democracy. If you want complete order, then move to North Korea. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be able to drive down a certain street, and still have my and America's liberties protected. True American patriotism is "Give me liberty or give me death". Not "sacrifice liberty for temporary security".

The key word is "peacable" in the constitution. That does not mean you are allowed to cause a commotion. You are allowed to gather and hold your signs and march or whatever. You are not allowed to block traffic, prevent people from going abou their daily lives, etc. It's not my opinion, it's the law and it is democracy. There is nothing that prevents you from your free speech. You don't get it. You are not allowed to disrupt people's lives with your protest. You are not allowed to block traffic. You are not allowed on to block the sidewalk so I can't pass by. I was in Seattle a few years back when they happened to be having Gay pride day. The Lesbians wanted to take off their shirts and go bare chested. They put them all in a little city park and the cops stood on each corner around the little park. All the lesbians that wanted to go bare chested did it. It was like a zoo. All the animals were in an area away from the humans. They got their right to protest and no one had their rights to going about their business disrupted.

Katczinsky · 08-18-2006, 11:39 AM

Oh really? Lets look at the definition of "peaceable"

Quote:

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

peace·a·ble Audio pronunciation of "peaceably" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-bl)
adj.

1. Inclined or disposed to peace; promoting calm: They met in a peaceable spirit.
2. Peaceful; undisturbed.

What peaceable quite clearly means is not an unruly riot. There's nothing belligerent about protest marches in streets. There's nothing aggressive at all about "causing a commotion", something that is very broad in of itself. Protests that are nonviolent are perfectly legal to be blocking traffic, and causing the President a little discomfort in his month-long vacation.

What the purpose of the "peaceably" part of the assembly clause is, is so that protestors can't use free speech or the right to assemble as an excuse to promote violence or vandalism. A good example is sometimes at certain marches, small minorities of usually Anarchist groups, like to overturn dumpsters, spray paint on buildings, and break business' windows. Now that is not peaceably. And the law enforcement officers have a right and obligation to uphold the law in that case. But what you have sometimes is the police like to treat all protesters the same, and as a consequence usually the nonviolent protesters are the ones that end up getting targeted by "non-lethal" weapons, and the actual vandals usually go untargeted.

But again, you haven't provided me with one law that clearly states blocking traffic or causing the President discomfort on his month-long vacation while practicing symbolic political speech and protest is criminality.

alias · 08-18-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Oh really? Lets look at the definition of "peaceable"

What peaceable quite clearly means is not an unruly riot. There's nothing belligerent about protest marches in streets. There's nothing aggressive at all about "causing a commotion", something that is very broad in of itself. Protests that are nonviolent are perfectly legal to be blocking traffic, and causing the President a little discomfort in his month-long vacation.

What the purpose of the "peaceably" part of the assembly clause is, is so that protestors can't use free speech or the right to assemble as an excuse to promote violence or vandalism. A good example is sometimes at certain marches, small minorities of usually Anarchist groups, like to overturn dumpsters, spray paint on buildings, and break business' windows. Now that is not peaceably. And the law enforcement officers have a right and obligation to uphold the law in that case. But what you have sometimes is the police like to treat all protesters the same, and as a consequence usually the nonviolent protesters are the ones that end up getting targeted by "non-lethal" weapons, and the actual vandals usually go untargeted.

But again, you haven't provided me with one law that clearly states blocking traffic or causing the President discomfort on his month-long vacation while practicing symbolic political speech and protest is criminality.

If you go out there with your group and block traffic you are going to get arrested and rightly so. Try it and find out.

Katczinsky · 08-18-2006, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

If you go out there with your group and block traffic you are going to get arrested and rightly so. Try it and find out.

Nope, I marched in Washington with 300,000 fellow anti-Iraq War protesters. We shut down Washington. It was perfectly legal.

Again, for the third time, if its so illegal, then please, do provide me with one law that states it so.

alias · 08-18-2006, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Nope, I marched in Washington with 300,000 fellow anti-Iraq War protesters. We shut down Washington. It was perfectly legal.

Again, for the third time, if its so illegal, then please, do provide me with one law that states it so.

You didn't shut down anything. "Peacable". It's in the constitution. And there weren't no 300,000 anti-Iraq war protesters. I wasn't born yesterday.

hevusa · 08-18-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Nope, I marched in Washington with 300,000 fellow anti-Iraq War protesters. We shut down Washington. It was perfectly legal.

Again, for the third time, if its so illegal, then please, do provide me with one law that states it so.

I marched with 100,000 in Seattle. We shut down Seattle. It was perfectly legal.

Katczinsky · 08-18-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

You didn't shut down anything. "Peacable". It's in the constitution. And there weren't no 300,000 anti-Iraq war protesters. I wasn't born yesterday.

What do you mean to tell me there wasn't 300,000, and that we didn't shut it down? I was there. I took a bus over there with a hudge group from OSU. Its just that it got little media coverage because it was at the time that a hurricane was hitting Texas.

It was the first protest march to actually march on the street in front of the white house for tens of years. The march went through out the administrative part of the city. No traffic could possibly get into the administrative section of Washington. And it was perfectly legal. I didn't see much police. Really the only police I saw was out in front of the white house. There was a group of policemen on horses out on the lawn. They were just standing there. They were pretty cool. Some agreed with us. And one police officer said they usually never get problems with the peace protesters. Its just usually the extremist groups and Anarchists they have problems with. And I do believe the anarchist groups that were there even set alight a dumpster and did some spray painting. They usually ruin it. But I don't know if any action was taken against them.

alias · 08-18-2006, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

I marched with 100,000 in Seattle. We shut down Seattle. It was perfectly legal.

Bullshit.

alias · 08-18-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

What do you mean to tell me there wasn't 300,000, and that we didn't shut it down? I was there. I took a bus over there with a hudge group from OSU. Its just that it got little media coverage because it was at the time that a hurricane was hitting Texas.

It was the first protest march to actually march on the street in front of the white house for tens of years. The march went through out the administrative part of the city. No traffic could possibly get into the administrative section of Washington. And it was perfectly legal. I didn't see much police. Really the only police I saw was out in front of the white house. There was a group of policemen on horses out on the lawn. They were just standing there. They were pretty cool. Some agreed with us. And one police officer said they usually never get problems with the peace protesters. Its just usually the extremist groups and Anarchists they have problems with. And I do believe the anarchist groups that were there even set alight a dumpster and did some spray painting. They usually ruin it. But I don't know if any action was taken against them.

300,000 protesters and you got "little media coverage". Oh for sure. What date was it? Give me a news source describing it.