Protesters at Republican Convention

[Vianna]

First, I just read in Rolling Stone that they are expecting all kinds of protesters at the convention, and then I see on AOL they are trying to offer the protesters "perks" if they behave. Anybody know anything about all this?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Vianna

First, I just read in Rolling Stone that they are expecting all kinds of protesters at the convention, and then I see on AOL they are trying to offer the protesters "perks" if they behave. Anybody know anything about all this?

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

[ShangriLaTroubl]

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

[CarneVaca]

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.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Vianna

First, I just read in Rolling Stone that they are expecting all kinds of protesters at the convention, and then I see on AOL they are trying to offer the protesters "perks" if they behave. Anybody know anything about all this?

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.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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.

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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?

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 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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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. I do not think anyone can argue that security dictates there could be a real threat to the peace Nice try though!!! Maybe instead we should just have no rules and let them mob the limos and tush 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

Oh, PUHLEEEEEEEZZZZZEEEEE. 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.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 Nice try though!!!

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.

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

Don't be silly.

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

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

I've been saying it all along.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Oh, PUHLEEEEEEEZZZZZEEEEE. 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.

I must have missed those posts of outrage

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

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.

[strandinthewind]

[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

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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.

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

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.