Unlimited right to protest?

[Elijah John]

Is the right to hold protest rallies unlimited? Do "peaceful" protesters have the right to occupy the streets for however long they feel is necessary?

Whatever happened to the requirement for permits to hold protests?

[AgnosticBoy]

Is the right to hold protest rallies unlimited? Do "peaceful" protesters have the right to occupy the streets for however long they feel is necessary?

Whatever happened to the requirement for permits to hold protests?

I don't even know what the protests are for any more. All of the cops involved in George Floyd's case have been arrested. Now all we can do is let justice play out.

Either way, I just wanted to address violent protest. Of course, violence in any context is a crime. Those who try to justify the violence don't realize that there's no limit to what some will do. That's why you have people burning down CNN headquarters, churches, and even assaulting police others. Should we also allow a rape as a means of protest for George Floyd? Can we also loot some of the liberal senators houses? Let them open their houses up to be looted.

[emilynghiem]

Is the right to hold protest rallies unlimited? Do "peaceful" protesters have the right to occupy the streets for however long they feel is necessary?

Whatever happened to the requirement for permits to hold protests?

I don't even know what the protests are for any more. All of the cops involved in George Floyd's case have been arrested. Now all we can do is let justice play out.

Either way, I just wanted to address violent protest. Of course, violence in any context is a crime. Those who try to justify the violence don't realize that there's no limit to what some will do. That's why you have people burning down CNN headquarters, churches, and even assaulting police others. Should we also allow a rape as a means of protest for George Floyd? Can we also loot some of the liberal senators houses? Let them open their houses up to be looted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyre ... sters.html

In general, it becomes a burden on taxpayers, as the police cannot keep wasting resources
guarding large groups when they need to be policing other areas equally.

What ends up happening is the protesters lingering too long will eventually
violate some other ordinance, such as loitering, littering, creating public nuisance
or disturbance, etc.

If people are going to do a PROLONGED action, such as a rolling hunger strike,
or in one case in Houston, taking shifts camping outside the Family Law Center,
usually the protestors will arrange with police and authorities so there is advance agreement.

https://www.houstonpress.com/news/the-e ... ns-6572508

[Elijah John]

Is the right to hold protest rallies unlimited? Do "peaceful" protesters have the right to occupy the streets for however long they feel is necessary?

Whatever happened to the requirement for permits to hold protests?

I don't even know what the protests are for any more. All of the cops involved in George Floyd's case have been arrested. Now all we can do is let justice play out.

Either way, I just wanted to address violent protest. Of course, violence in any context is a crime. Those who try to justify the violence don't realize that there's no limit to what some will do. That's why you have people burning down CNN headquarters, churches, and even assaulting police others. Should we also allow a rape as a means of protest for George Floyd? Can we also loot some of the liberal senators houses? Let them open their houses up to be looted.

Also, Chris Palmer cheered the protesters as they destroyed a housing unit. But when his own neighborhood was attacked, he sang a different tune. This is only one example of Leftist hypocrisy.

[koko]

The US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech though the Founding Fathers put certain limitations on this practice. However, the Founders also gave people a way to check government abuse of power by giving people the unlimited right to keep and bear weapons as a check against such abuses.

[emilynghiem]

The US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech though the Founding Fathers put certain limitations on this practice. However, the Founders also gave people a way to check government abuse of power by giving people the unlimited right to keep and bear weapons as a check against such abuses.

Yes, @koko any rights within the laws
should be enforced IN CONTEXT with the rest of the laws.

(a) So with the First Amendment, all the free exercise of religion, speech and press
is WITHIN the same context as
the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances.

If you are OBSTRUCTING your neighbors' right to peace and ability to petition,
that's OPPRESSIVE, so it actually violates the spirit of the SAME laws
people use to invoke and defend freedom of speech and free exercise.

It only makes sense that we cannot violate the same laws we are trying to enforce and exercise rights under!

(b) Similar with the rights to due process, and NOT to be "deprived of liberty"
without due process to first prove conviction of a crime warranting the loss of liberty.

Liberals who interpret the "general welfare" clause to mean govt has a duty to provide
for housing, health care, jobs and education CANNOT FORGET that the SAME Constitution
protects LIBERTY, where laws cannot just be made to deprive liberty for sake of public welfare.
DUE PROCESS is equally part of these laws, and protection against "taxation without representation."
So you need the PUBLIC's and Taxpayer's CONSENT before passing more govt laws
or creating more social programs that taxpayers are expected to give up labor or money to pay for!
DUE PROCESS is another way of saying you'd have to prove certain people
are CAUSING or COSTING a debt before forcing them to pay for services so it isn't abuse or theft, etc.

(c) As for not abusing "the right to bear arms" in the Second Amendment,
the Fourth Amendment protects the right of "security" in our "persons, houses, and effects."
So again, it only makes sense that the 2nd Amendment does not mean ABUSING arms
to ROB people of liberty, or invade their houses to steal or damage their effects.
Such abuse would violate other laws and rights in the same Bill of Rights!

www.ethics-commission.net
If the entire Constitutional laws and process were taught in full context,
instead of taking laws and rights out of context to either abuse them
or require additional legislation to address abuses, why couldn't we
teach ALL people to follow the laws and respect each other's rights?

That would make more sense, rather than complain of abuses and try to pass "more laws."
Why not enforce the standards we already have, which should be enough to deter abuses!

[koko]

emilynghiem,


Yes, @koko any rights within the laws
should be enforced IN CONTEXT with the rest of the laws.

Indeed. As someone with a law degree, no one is more conscious of this truth than I am.


Jefferson was quoted as allegedly asserting that "when people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people there is liberty". Armed right wingers are keen to assert this when convenient while ignoring it when not.

We saw an example of this last month when anti mask protesters flouted the law by refusing to wear masks and by not adhering to the social distancing rule. Political conservatives applauded when the anti masks protesters took this illegal action. Protesters openly objected to the mitigation mandate imposed by Governor Whitmer on the grounds it violated their liberty. But in doing so they disregarded everyone else's right to be free of viral contamination.

It is a matter of recorded fact that the state experienced a spike in virus cases as a result of the violations those people committed. This has also happened in states where people flouted the mitigation rules while attending churches without the recommended protections. Several people, including famous preachers (Landon Spradlin & Bishop Gerald Glenn), died as a consequence of this public disobedience. Going by the standards you reported in your post, these OBSTRUCTIVE actions undertaken by the anti mask crowd also constitute OPPRESSION.

While I join with the right wingers in condemning the violence we have seen these past few weeks (violence which I have shown to be largely spurred by right wingers, by government agent provocateurs, and public rabble), I have yet to see right wingers condemn the public right wing flouting above which led to the needless deaths of so many people.

[koko]

emilynghiem,

re due process and loss of liberty

The safety net programs created by FDR legislation in the 1930s are often called "socialist" or "Marxist" by cynical right wingers. They assert that these programs while benefiting some constitute a loss of liberty to others. Among them are Social Security, some health care reform, agricultural subsidization, infrastructural building, and subsidized education. Those critics who assert that these programs are "Marxist" fail to understand that the legal or social theory behind them were not created by Marx. Instead, they were suggested with some put into practice by our Founding Fathers. For example, health care reform was practiced by Ben Franklin before the Constitution was signed. Hamilton and Washington demanded the building up of infrastructure (see Hamilton's Report On Manufactures*). Agricultural reform and Social Security were demanded by Thomas Paine in 1795**. All of these "Marxist" ideals were created by Americanist Founders before Marx was born.

Right wingers like Trump and his crowd have done their best to end these safety net programs. They do so on the grounds that they somehow violate people's "liberty". Yet, these programs were validated by the courts and have plenty of historical precedent. There is nothing "Marxist" or subversive about them. On the contrary, they are of American origin. They promote the common welfare and do not constitute a loss of liberty for anyone.



*https://tinyurl.com/y9vpsxdm

**https://tinyurl.com/yczsvpkq

[koko]

emilynghiem,


2d & 4th Amendments

why couldn't we
teach ALL people to follow the laws and respect each other's rights?

That would make more sense, rather than complain of abuses and try to pass "more laws."
Why not enforce the standards we already have, which should be enough to deter abuses!

I am not aware of anyone asserting that we shouldn't respect each other's rights. But as for dealing with abuse, the city of Minneapolis recently enacted a rule where police are no longer allowed to strike or obstruct anyone's neck. Further, any cop who sees another doing so MUST intervene to stop it. For years police have been abusing the law and getting away with it. As you say, we do need to practice the Constitution's rights for all. But it is not enough. New legislation like this reform in Minneapolis is not only a good idea it is absolutely crucial.

I would go a step further and create legislation which ends police "qualified immunity"*. From now on police are to be held financially liable for their crimes. This way the public will no longer have to pay for these crimes. Police and their unions will. Through this we will bankrupt those unions, end their lobbying power, and force them to be accountable for their crimes. This will put an end to their crimes, their corruption, and lead to a safer and better society.






*https://tinyurl.com/y9chuqzg

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem,


Yes, @koko any rights within the laws
should be enforced IN CONTEXT with the rest of the laws.

Indeed. As someone with a law degree, no one is more conscious of this truth than I am.


Jefferson was quoted as allegedly asserting that "when people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people there is liberty". Armed right wingers are keen to assert this when convenient while ignoring it when not.

We saw an example of this last month when anti mask protesters flouted the law by refusing to wear masks and by not adhering to the social distancing rule. Political conservatives applauded when the anti masks protesters took this illegal action. Protesters openly objected to the mitigation mandate imposed by Governor Whitmer on the grounds it violated their liberty. But in doing so they disregarded everyone else's right to be free of viral contamination.

It is a matter of recorded fact that the state experienced a spike in virus cases as a result of the violations those people committed. This has also happened in states where people flouted the mitigation rules while attending churches without the recommended protections. Several people, including famous preachers (Landon Spradlin & Bishop Gerald Glenn), died as a consequence of this public disobedience. Going by the standards you reported in your post, these OBSTRUCTIVE actions undertaken by the anti mask crowd also constitute OPPRESSION.

While I join with the right wingers in condemning the violence we have seen these past few weeks (violence which I have shown to be largely spurred by right wingers, by government agent provocateurs, and public rabble), I have yet to see right wingers condemn the public right wing flouting above which led to the needless deaths of so many people.

Dear @koko
The discrimination in bias goes both ways, does it not?
The right equally complains that the left-biased leaders, in reacting to the virus pandemic
sought to RELEASE inmates that did not meet standards of nonviolent threats, but had
enough violent criminal records to block release. Yet these "liberal" judges and authorities
released enough of these due to the pandemic that resulted in crimes, including deaths, against law abiding citizens.

How is THAT to be justified as for the sake of "public health, safety and saving lives"?
When such releases ARE imposing threats to lives and the public,
as evidenced by cases of violent crime and even murder?

The other arguments on the side of the rightwing/conservatives:
(a) How to protect people medically without violating Constitutional rights and freedoms

There is a THIRD alternative: of allowing those who do not want their businesses or freedoms
imposed on by shutdowns or other measures to MANAGE THEIR OWN medical and law enforcement
policies and resources PER DISTRICT, so they are not in conflict with people wanting govt protections
and intervention who can implement those protocols in their OWN districts.

We need to separate and democratize districts to be self supporting anyway,
in order for EITHER the Govt to be cost effective in providing health care for the Liberals who believe in that
OR the free market institutions to provide these services to Conservative taxpayers who believe in that instead.

Why isn't a "least restrictive" approach by Govt offered
to prevent lawsuits against the restrictions NOT proven to be restricting the right people
as in (b) below:

(b) How to manage the demands of crowds, without "depriving of liberty without due process"

by the nature of the virus being asymptomatic in the greater cases of spread,
this is hard to prove WHO is at risk. So this is where their argument comes from
that TESTING is needed to PROVE someone is doing this "spreading" BEFORE depriving them of rights.

This is equivalent to a restriction as requiring people to SIGN UP with organized
groups before protesting so legal and medical responsibility for safety issues can be ensured.
Either for the virus/pandemic concerns or the additional prevention of
any other risks or threats to life, safety or property.

To be CONSISTENT, if we are going to say that RISK OF SPREAD of
asymptomatic infection "where we cannot confirm in advance WHICH people
are risking the spread to others" is ENOUGH to restrict crowds at protests,
then the RISK of SPREAD PLUS ADDED PROBLEMS of crowd control
when there have been "threats of violence against police" would be even
MORE reason to seek safe arrangements made IN ADVANCE with participants.

If we are asking BUSINESSES to reduce their capacity to 25% and make
sure employees can SAFELY serve the public, the same should apply
to POLICE needing to be in proportionate numbers to safely serve the participants at protests.