Protesters at Republican Convention
 

I'd promise to behave as long as the "perk" was that Bush would resign, effective immediately. ;)

I've heard a little about this..although I do not know the details.

I have heard from a group I'm on many democrats have decided not to protest, in their efforts to keep the Kerry campaign positive...

And I've also heard the city of NYC offering perks, is what I thought I read...because they are worried about violence, and such in their city

Chris

My building is part of the Madison Square Gardent/Penn Station complex.

Protesters are being confined to an area away from the complex, which is not only unconstitutional but also for all practical purposes defies the whole concept of protesting in the first place. What if you had a protest and nobody saw it?

The way New York and Boston have been handling protesters for the conventions is despicable.

If groups are agreeing not to protest to keep Kerry's campaign positive, then they are not worth their salt as protesters and should stay the hell away anyway.

Here's what's happening:

Since the protesters are being confined, several groups have vowed to violate the "free speech" zones and insist they will protest right outside the Garden. Should this happen, the potential for violent clashes with police is a near inevitability. That means buildings around here could go into lock-down mode and cause serious disruptions.

Certain merchants around here have offered to sell food at a discount to protesters to keep them passive. Here's the goofiness of it all: Some of the most radical groups of protesters, the ones that may incite clashes, also happen to be the least likely to take advantage of corporate-owned fast food joint food.

By and large, protesters are peaceful folk who want nothing more than to make a statement. The radical, violent-prone groups are not going to be won over with cheap food.

Historically, when violent clashes occur in these situations, it has been determined that the authorities tend to trigger them by overreacting to taunts and gestures. I want to believe that NYC police have been trained sufficiently to know how to diffuse potentially violent situations. After all, cops in this city make **** money and are expected to protect the population in the Western world's hottest target.

I hear they are asking them to wear a button deonting themselves as "peaceful protesters". The implications of asking anyone to wear anything to identify themselves as something is a bit unsettling to me. I'll leave it at that.

:nod: :nod: :nod:

But New York City cops are assholes, for the most part, along with Philly cops. They'd arrest and attack protesters out of spite. I guess that's what happens when "America's Mayor" let the cops get away with bloody murder, set their own rules, and cover up the slaughtering of innocent citizens.

It is not unconstitutional to put protesters in a confined area, esp. when there is a threat (real or a significant possibility) to the peace. As you indicated, there could be a real threat to the peace :shrug: Nice try though!!!

Maybe instead we should just have no rules and let them mob the limos and rush the stage :)

BTW - the D conv. had similar rules for protesters. But, did we hear a peep out of the D's that it was unfair to put the R and far far left out of sight :rolleyes:

Oh, PUHLEEEEEEEZZZZZEEEEE. :rolleyes: There you go again, making us out to look like hypocritical idiots.

There were plenty of far-lefties who decried what was being done to the protesters in Boston, even the DU crowd thought it was despicable. I even found it disgusting, even though the right-wing protesters churned my stomach.

We have the right to free assembly and free speech, this government cannot dictate to us how to do so unless it's on private property, in which case the owners can. But they want to protest on public property, which is owned by the taxpayers, not the government. You cannot defend this bull****, it undermines the principles of this country. This is evil.

Sorry, Jason, the First Amendment is specific and unambiguous about freedom of speech. I see nothing in it about "free speech zones." And the First Amendment is good enough for me.

Don't be silly.

Thanks for making my argument for me. Democrats = Republicans. Republicans = Democrats.

I've been saying it all along.

Lordy, oh but when you're right, you're right!!

I must have missed those posts of outrage :laugh:

You statement

We have the right to free assembly and free speech, this government cannot dictate to us how to do so unless it's on private property, in which case the owners can. But they want to protest on public property, which is owned by the taxpayers, not the government. You cannot defend this bull****, it undermines the principles of this country.

_______________________

is just wrong - period. Although I admire the ideal, it is not workable and the USSC has for about 200 years shot it down. Again, should we just let the protestors run free? Let's allow them to shout "fire" and have the hall in which the people they are protesting against evacuated. Better yet, let's just let them block all traffic and have anarchy - as long as they are being peaceful what harm is done and certainly the Const. is not violated :rolleyes:

Again, for YEARS - the right to protest (and free speech for that matter) under the First Amendment has been found not absolute by the Sup. Ct. - and rightly so because society must be allowed to function.

But, I do agree with you to this extent, if the protestors are put in another city like Weehawken, then that is wrong because it removes the effect of the protest. So, it is a balancing test - as the Sup. Ct. has consistently said.

[QUOTE=CarneVaca]Sorry, Jason, the First Amendment is specific and unambiguous about freedom of speech. I see nothing in it about "free speech zones." And the First Amendment is good enough for me.[QUOTE]

Is this Carne arguing for a strict interpretation of the Const. Hmmmmmm - what was that about a right to privacy being in some penumbra :rolleyes:

Again, if you are for letting people run wild in the streets in protest, stopping commerce, halting trade, blah blah blah - so be it. But, I think you know better than that :rolleyes:

Seems to me that you're confusing peaceful protesting with some other beast.

What an imagination.

These proetesters want the right to have a peaceful demonstration in Central Park, they have been denied the right to do so, the official reason being that it would ruin the grass. Please tell me what the Constitution says about grass denying someone their constitutional right to free speech and free assembly.

No I am not. I am all for protesting. But, you cannot deny that there are security risks present here. Do you think it would be prudent for any political convention to allow the protestors, NONE of whom have had any security clearance mind you, to just plop on up to the front door of the hall and scream at the candidates at the tops of their lungs and within inches should one choose to open fire even though being ostensibly peaceful. No, that is not a workable scenario. Putting them across the street, etc. is and that is what has happened for about 100 years or so. That is all I am arguing.

I, and apparently no one else in this thread, am not talking about Central Park. I am talking about protesting at the conv. center :rolleyes:

No one wants to protest at the doors of the venue. ;) They want to protest in Central Park, but have been denied their constitutional right.

That is a non-issue because no one is attempting to do so. What group of protesters wants to protest at the doors of the venue? Please give me an example.

Carne has said that they want to do it right outside the Garden, not in front of the doors. Don't you think that would be pretty stupid? The entrance will be swarming with security anyways. :shrug: The entire scenario you laid out with protesters being in front of the door and opening fire is ridiculous.

Well, you said:

We have the right to free assembly and free speech, this government cannot dictate to us how to do so unless it's on private property, in which case the owners can. But they want to protest on public property, which is owned by the taxpayers, not the government. You cannot defend this bull****, it undermines the principles of this country. This is evil.
_______________________________________________

Carne validated this by giving it a favorable response. So, I was just going on that. I thought you meant by that to say "anywhere and anytime" as long as it is on public property. So, we agree, the Const. does not prohibit the state from disallowing where people can protest on public property because you agreed they could not be at the doors of the hall, etc. I took your assertion and Carne's assertion to mean that it did not. I was like - what are they talking about :laugh:

BTW - I agree the Central Park thing is ridiculous.

Also, you don't think it is a possible scenario for an ostensibly casual and peaceful onlooker to open fire - just ask RR about that :shrug: :cool: So, no I do not think it is silly at all - in fact, the threat of violence is what causes protestors to be kept at a distance. I hate that a bad apple has to spoil it the rest, but the alternative is too risky. So, to the side the protester's go :cool:

I posted about it. But I know you've had trouble interpreting my posts lately. ;) :laugh:

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]Jason, shouting fire in crowded theory is not the same as allowing peaceful protesters to assemble on a sidewalk outside a building. I am surprised you would confuse those.

As I suspected, you're confusing things. We're not talking about putting them across the street, where they can still be effective. We're talking about hiding them altogether. Your position, if you insist on defending this practice, is indefensible. It will be struck down in court sooner or later. I have no doubt. Hell the Mass. court even struck down the transportation authority's claim that it had a right to search people indiscriminately during DNC week. And considering our current issue with terrorism, I would think that people carrying briefcases in a train poses more of a theoretical threat than a bunch of ragtag demonstrators shouting slogans and holding signs.

That's not quite accurate either. A few groups have vowed to defy the city's "free speech zones."

This, the city has brought on itself. Had it approach the whole matter of demonstrations from a position of fairness, the protesters would be standing across the street doing their sloganeering and would have no reason to defy any ridiculous "free speech zone."

Strictly speaking, no. But I have yet to see any state law that supersedes the Bill of Rights stand. Can't happen.

I was not talking about you - unless you qualify as a Democrat!!! :cool: :shrug:

I am not. All I am saying is the threat of violence even from ostensibly peaceful protesters has been enough for many many years now to allow the state to move the protesters to the side. I think that makes sense becuase a peaceful protest can turn ugly for a myriad of reasons, one of which is a psycho in the peaceful group :shrug:

Well, it can and has. The Sup. Ct. has routinely upheld the state's interest in controlling even peaceful demonstrations. Again, I am not talking about putting the protesters in Jersey, I am talking about banning them from say 50 yards from the main entrance or something like that. It happens all of the time and it has been upheld for the reasons I asserted earlier :shrug:

I think if a demonstration is peaceful, it should be unfettered. But, I do not think the protesters of the RNC are talking about a silent sit in :laugh: We are talking picket lines, loudspeakers, screaming, etc. I am all for that. I just think the state has a right to say it is the interest of safety and free commerce to put these peaceful protesters not within so many feet of the entrance to the hall. That is all I am saying :cool:

I know they're going to defy the "free speech zones," but I don't understand how they'll be able to do it in front of the door to the Garden.

The rest I agree with. ;) NYC invited this mess, as did the Republicans when they decided to bring their ****ty convention to a city they thought would embrace them because of 9/11. It's simply another instance of them trying to claim 9/11.

9/11 is the only thing W has to embrace. His tax cuts were a great spark, but his subsequent over spending (significantly in a foreign land) on borrowed money has driven the economy into the toilet and the jobs he promised AFTER 9/11 and to promote his second tax cut, have miseranbly failed to appear. Then, depending on which poll is read, from half to about 60 something percent agree Iraq was not worth the result, etc. So, 9/11 is it.

Interestingly, I think that given the climate of today's world as oppsed to about 2 or so years ago when the conventions were announced, Rove would be in Philly or Miami with this convention and leave NYC alone. But, it is too late for that. So, they have to go with a smile on their worried faces. So be it :cool:

He can't even embrace 9/11 anymore, there are too many questions and mysteries surrounding it.

His tax cuts failed to work, as do all tax cuts. The economy is in the toilet all over again. 32,000 jobs, that is funny, my friend. Unfortunately, it isn't for the people who need jobs.

Bush is toast...Texas toast. He's about to get a boot in the ass and I can't wait to hear his speech after losing. And his face at the inauguration. Priceless! :thumbsup:

He will smirk. From what I have seen, humility is not his best face. So, it will be a smirk. Rumsfeld will be apoplectic!!!!!! Rove will go to an asylum :laugh:

BTW - just about every major and credible economist, including Greenspan, disagrees with you on the tax cuts issue and you have never ever come up with an alternate theory on how to jump start a coughing economy - just complain complain complain - but that has never stopped you before :laugh: :wavey:

And Rice will be fried. :laugh:

with baby corn and pork!!!!!!!!

Oh, OK. I was replying to your outrage point. But I see what you mean. You're right, I am not a Democrat.

There you go blaming the victim. Go do your research, young man. Historically, not only in this country but also elsewhere, peaceful protests turn ugly when the authorities get violent. That's a fact.

So the authorities get violent, cause all the trouble, then they turn around and get the courts to enjoin people from protesting in certain places. I would think your higher sense of justice would abhor that, rather than just parroting whatever may be on the books, misguided as it is. :p

Well, that certainly is true in alot of occasions, but protesters can get ugly and certainly not every demonstration has been peaceful - look at the Watts riots, look at the Rodney King riots :shrug: The latter stemmed from a horrible court verdict, but the protesters were not goaded by authorities to get ciolent, etc. - they did it on their own because they were pissed off. Granted, they had a right in spades to be pissed off, but that does not allow anyone to hurt the property or being of another :shrug:

So, my point is not all protests are goaded into violence by the police :srhug:

Again, I do not think keeping the protesters something like 50 or so feet (maybe less depending on the palce, etc.) from the entrance to a hall is particularly egregious. I think it is a fair balance :shrug:

Jason, why speak in hypotheticals? That's just not the situation here, yet you insist on falling back on what's in the books and how it would apply to a hypothetical situation that simply does not reflect the current reality. I don't understand why you would do that.

There is some truth to that. But most are.

What is especially silly is that the city and the RNC may end up having more trouble with the cops themselves. Hell, so many NY cops and firefighters are pissed off at the way they have been treated by the city, a mere three years after they were being constantly hailed as heros, that they are hinting at striking during the convention. Imagine that.

So let's say the cops and firefighters strike because the government has shat on them forever and as a result the security is not as solid as it could be during the convention. Then let's say some groups of protesters get wild because the city was too restrictive in the first place. We're looking at a disaster of major proportions.

And all of if will have been as a result of the shortsightedness and paranoia of the authorities.

I should think it delicious if not for my concern over the safety of innocent citizens.

Just look at the "authorities" in Florida who almost caused a riot after unjustly shooting a man with a taser gun two days ago.

Not just Bush...his entire administration...then disband the Republican Party and revoke US citizenship of all Republicans. (starting with the CA governor)

Cause and effect, Jason. You can still trace that back to the authorities. Mind you, I'm not excusing kicking the crap out of innocent people and going on a lotting rampage; I am merely pointing out the authorities were still ultimately to blame.

I never said all. But if I choke on one piece of popcorn, should I ban popcorn from my household altogether?