GOP and the right to assemble

[dmp]

In fact, most the ones that got violent and deserved arrest in the Seattle WTO riots were not democrats.

Right - they were merely "Liberals"




Do you REALLY think these guys are REPUBLICANS???

 

[tpahl]

Why not just answer the question?

Because it is none of your business how old I am, nor is it of any importance to the issue at hand. But if it will make you answer my questions both in the last post and this one I will gladly answer it for you.

You are in favour of the 'rights' of one group to trump the 'rights' of another. That's the wrong answer my friend.

I beleive there is a right to assemble. I think it is foolish to beleive that you have a right to live in a society where no one breaks the law. Therefore I am not the one in favour of one groups right to trump another groups right since I beleive in this particular case there is only one right in play.

But just to make things clear...

1. Are you stating that it is wrong to have one groups rights trump another groups rights?

2. Do you beleive that you have a right to assemble?

3. Do you beleive that you have a right to live in a society where citizens obey the law?

And also I will restate my request from the last post since you ignored it and instead decided to dwell on my age.

4. Please give your definition of a right and of a priveledge.

And so you will not use my avoiding your personal and unimportant question regarding my age, I am 27. Now lets try to focus back at the issue at hand. Thanks.

 

[tpahl]

Right - they were merely "Liberals"




Do you REALLY think these guys are REPUBLICANS???

Just becasue someone is not a republican does not mean they are a democrat.

No. I do not know what political party they are. All I am saying is that the people who became violent at the WTO riots were not democrats for the most part.

What political party those people are above I have no idea. They also do not look like the people causing violence.

 

[tpahl]

I favor the right to assemble peacefully. I also favor the right - and responsibility - of the police to prepare for the chance that some of the assemblers will not be peaceful.

Yeah, they can do that. No one has complained about that. What is being questioned is the need to ask for a permit AND the denial of such permits to exercise a RIGHT.

 

[tpahl]

I begin the 'delusional' because you persist in presenting yourself as.

No am I am not. I am presenting an arguement. you insist however on declaring it delusional everytime i disagree with you. As a moderator I expect better from you.

In this case, you are acting as if one person is wanting to make a statement in Central Park. A statement that is all talk and no 'incitement.' Problem is, there are another X number that want to do the later, which you are ignoring.

I have not ignored that there are people out that that want to incite problems. I have simply been chosing to discuss the other people that are NOT doing such things and have no such plans to do so. They rights should not be restricted. What others plan to do is not of importance.

Can't let 'one' and not the 'rest.' Any 5 year old knows that. Which is the reason the court ruled as it did. d'oh!

You can let EVERYONE peacefully assemble. In fact the government has a responsibility to protect that right. and it also has a reponsibility to stop anyone who is inciting violence. What does this mean in terms of the NYC GOP protests coming up? It means everyone should be able to go protest where they chose, assemble with whomever they chose, and say whatever they chose, so long as they do so peacefully and do not harm others or others property.

There is no need for permits since it is a right, and there is CERTAINLY no need for denial of permits based on what people fear others might do.

That park is not 'manageable', which is necessary.

Then explain all the huge gatherings that have taken place almost daily in the summer for the past few decades in the park?

Travis

 

[Annie]

No am I am not. I am presenting an arguement. you insist however on declaring it delusional everytime i disagree with you. As a moderator I expect better from you.

As a spinmeister for a party, I expect better from you. So we get what we get.

I have not ignored that there are people out that that want to incite problems. I have simply been chosing to discuss the other people that are NOT doing such things and have no such plans to do so. They rights should not be restricted. What others plan to do is not of importance.

Unfortunately, those that do not want to incite cannot necessarily be identified seperatly from those that do. Thus, in the interest of the 'whole' the protestors must be kept in an area that is 'manageable.'

You can let EVERYONE peacefully assemble. In fact the government has a responsibility to protect that right. and it also has a reponsibility to stop anyone who is inciting violence. What does this mean in terms of the NYC GOP protests coming up? It means everyone should be able to go protest where they chose, assemble with whomever they chose, and say whatever they chose, so long as they do so peacefully and do not harm others or others property.

So you, the city of NY and I agree. They are going to have the right to protest. The point of difference comes in choice of venue; the city, the courts and many people who are for dissent, but not anarchy, agree that they should have the right to assemble and speak. They do not have the right to put the city in danger, nor the delegates.

There is no need for permits since it is a right, and there is CERTAINLY no need for denial of permits based on what people fear others might do.

Wrong. It's 2004, not 1776. Too many people, too many types of weapons.

Then explain all the huge gatherings that have taken place almost daily in the summer for the past few decades in the park?

Apples and oranges and you're still delusional.

 

[tpahl]

As a spinmeister for a party, I expect better from you. So we get what we get.

I am respectiful when I respond to you. You begin most every post with disrespect. Do you do it to upset me or do you really think it will change my views on Bush and Kerry?

Unfortunately, those that do not want to incite cannot necessarily be identified seperatly from those that do. Thus, in the interest of the 'whole' the protestors must be kept in an area that is 'manageable.'

It is true that you can not identify a criminal until they are commiting the crime. But in a free society we treat all people as innocent until proven guilty. We also respect their right to peacefully assemble. requiring permits and denying them does niether of these two things.

So you, the city of NY and I agree. They are going to have the right to protest. The point of difference comes in choice of venue; the city, the courts and many people who are for dissent, but not anarchy, agree that they should have the right to assemble and speak. They do not have the right to put the city in danger, nor the delegates. [/quotes]

No, we do not agree. I think people have a right to assemble in public parks. The city does not.

Wrong. It's 2004, not 1776. Too many people, too many types of weapons. [/qoute]

A right is a right regardless of the current year.

Apples and oranges and you're still delusional.

Large gatherings of people in central park. What is the difference? One is political, the other is not. Oh and way to spice things up by calling me names at the end of the post rather than the begining.

 

[theim]

Large wedding parties never attract hoardes of occasionaly violent people. Political gatherings frequently do.

Im interested in hearing your opinion on Democrats keeping protesters in fenced-off areas during the DNC.

 

[Merlin1047]

Its going to happen, not because of violence per se, but because there is no permit the police will either cite them, or arrest them when they refuse to leave. then the court go-round begins and we'll be talking about the constitution alot.

Not arguing with your statement as I know it to be true. But I wonder how government has managed to accrue to itself the power to "license" a right specifically stated in the in the amendments to the Constitution. Has government requirement to license public gatherings been tested by the Supreme Court? TPAHL's article makes a valid point with the statement ". . . it's not a right if you have to ask somebody's permission".

Government has somehow managed to tap dance its way around several amendments, most notably the first, second and fourth. To me, this represents a rather alarming trend. Both parties are at fault for this erosion of our rights.

I hope that after the election, some new, truly conservative political parties start actively pursuing voter interest instead of hibernating for another three years and coming out only at election time.

 

[tpahl]

Large wedding parties never attract hoardes of occasionaly violent people. Political gatherings frequently do.

there have also been concerts, marathons, political rallies, parades etc... All of these events have attracted violent people. Whether a this political rally may or may not attract violent people in hoardes is not a valid reason to deny the peaceful protesters from assemblying and speaking. It just means the police will have to find the violent people and arrest them like they do any other day.

Im interested in hearing your opinion on Democrats keeping protesters in fenced-off areas during the DNC.

It was dead wrong and an outrage.

Travis

 

[ScreamingEagle]

tphal, this may help make things CLEAR for you:

You forgot one word in your title "the right to assemble".

It is the right to PEACEFUL assembly.

Since you liberals have been VERY NAUGHTY in the past, you are GROUNDED from going to Central Park.

And that's all there is to it! Period! No whining!

Sane society's foot is put down until you liberals learn to behave better!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Not arguing with your statement as I know it to be true. But I wonder how government has managed to accrue to itself the power to "license" a right specifically stated in the in the amendments to the Constitution. Has government requirement to license public gatherings been tested by the Supreme Court? TPAHL's article makes a valid point with the statement ". . . it's not a right if you have to ask somebody's permission".

Government has somehow managed to tap dance its way around several amendments, most notably the first, second and fourth. To me, this represents a rather alarming trend. Both parties are at fault for this erosion of our rights.

I hope that after the election, some new, truly conservative political parties start actively pursuing voter interest instead of hibernating for another three years and coming out only at election time.

I have no knowledge of any specific case that sanctions this but I seem to remember various arguments by cities/states that used security and extra police on hand requiring pre-knowledge of said event and the permit goes to providing funds to pay for the extra security forces. If i'm not mistaken, this has been won in the past by local and state governments.

 

[tpahl]

tphal, this may help make things CLEAR for you:

You forgot one word in your title "the right to assemble".

It is the right to PEACEFUL assembly.

Right, but NYC has denied them the permit to peacefully assemble. if they assemble and it some people are not peaceful, then by all means, arrest them. My whole arguement is that by requiring them to have a permit and then denying them a permit, they are denying their right to peacefully assemble. You are claiming that they can deny it based on the idea that others MIGHT come and be less than peaceful?

Since you liberals have been VERY NAUGHTY in the past, you are GROUNDED from going to Central Park.

And that's all there is to it! Period! No whining!

Sane society's foot is put down until you liberals learn to behave better!

I am not a liberal. As I keep telling Kathianne, It is not nice to call people names. I would rather be called delusional than liberal. (unless you put the word classical before it).

Travis

 

[tpahl]

I have no knowledge of any specific case that sanctions this but I seem to remember various arguments by cities/states that used security and extra police on hand requiring pre-knowledge of said event and the permit goes to providing funds to pay for the extra security forces. If i'm not mistaken, this has been won in the past by local and state governments.

This would be a reasonable explanation for requiring that their be notification beforehand. However the city is asking for more than notification and money. They are asking that the people ask permission. The difference being that in once case notification is given and the government must accept it. In the case of NYC, they are denying the group from protesting.

Travis

 

[Annie]

Right, but NYC has denied them the permit to peacefully assemble. if they assemble and it some people are not peaceful, then by all means, arrest them. My whole arguement is that by requiring them to have a permit and then denying them a permit, they are denying their right to peacefully assemble. You are claiming that they can deny it based on the idea that others MIGHT come and be less than peaceful?




I am not a liberal. As I keep telling Kathianne, It is not nice to call people names. I would rather be called delusional than liberal. (unless you put the word classical before it).

Travis

Wrong. Because of the 'given threats of violence' not to mention past history of political violence at conventions, (see Chicago 1968), the police not only have a right, but a duty to prevent this level of violence. That would not include prevention of demonstrations, but would include where and how such protests may be carried out. At the same time, that may entail a curbing of 'peaceful' people from venues thus closed. They should be given the same as the groups that have been 'corraled.'

 

[tpahl]

Wrong. Because of the 'given threats of violence' not to mention past history of political violence at conventions, (see Chicago 1968), the police not only have a right, but a duty to prevent this level of violence. That would not include prevention of demonstrations, but would include where and how such protests may be carried out. At the same time, that may entail a curbing of 'peaceful' people from venues thus closed. They should be given the same as the groups that have been 'corraled.'

So you are saying that we can protest but only how the government says, in numbers the government accepts, in locations acceptable to the government, and at a time the government feels like it.

How .

If I were still living in NYC, (thank god I am not) I would be going to central park to protest the ideas you just outlines above. Just as I protested the free speech zones they set up in seattle during the WTO riots.

 

[Annie]

So you are saying that we can protest but only how the government says, in numbers the government accepts, in locations acceptable to the government, and at a time the government feels like it.

How .

If I were still living in NYC, (thank god I am not) I would be going to central park to protest the ideas you just outlines above. Just as I protested the free speech zones they set up in seattle during the WTO riots.

Not talking about HOW-other than lawful; numbers-not a factor other than in areas that can accomodate and still be 'managed.' Time doesn't seem to be a factor.


NYC has not asked for protestors to refrain from coming, just to follow the rules laid down for everyone's protection, most importantly, the greatest number of people who don't give a flying fuc*.

 

[Moi]

As someone who has to work in NYC I hope that the protestors do get arrested if they do not confine themselves to the designated areas. I've been accosted by then just walking down the street minding my own business. Freedom of speech and assembly does NOT give you the right to congregate, block traffic (pedestrian or vehicular) nor does it give you the right to say whatever and be wherever you please.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Right, but NYC has denied them the permit to peacefully assemble. if they assemble and it some people are not peaceful, then by all means, arrest them. My whole arguement is that by requiring them to have a permit and then denying them a permit, they are denying their right to peacefully assemble. You are claiming that they can deny it based on the idea that others MIGHT come and be less than peaceful?


I am not a liberal. As I keep telling Kathianne, It is not nice to call people names. I would rather be called delusional than liberal. (unless you put the word classical before it).

Travis

So sorry if I inadvertently lumped you in with liberals if you are not one.

Your argument has what I call ACLU type "legal points" but completely ignores just plain common sense. If you think they MIGHT destroy things, meaning they might NOT destroy things, why don't you foot the coming bill? I'm sure they're all going to be good little protestors that obey the law...hah! Stop being so idealistic and join the adults of the world who can see reality.

NYC is trying to minimize millions of dollars of destruction. NYC does not want to have to PAY FOR the crappy behavior which typically occurs at such "peaceful" assemblies.

Other venues which have potential for disturbance put up bonds to PAY FOR any destruction they might cause in a community. However, nobody of this protest party has yet put up a bond to cover the likely coming destruction of probably 20 million dollars worth if held in Central Park. Therefore NYC has every right to control where these protestors can have their nasty hate-Bush protest that you know they will consider a success if they can disrupt the Republican convention and push the convention news off the front page with their destructive maneuvers.

Frankly, I'd stick them out on Staten Island far away from the Rep convention. Why should the Republican's convention be spoiled by a bunch of assholes? They had their own convention and we didn't disrupt theirs. Why can't we have an undisturbed convention just like they had? Isn't that OUR right? You KNOW that interference of the Republican convention is the whole POINT of their "peaceful" protest.

Why don't you post the bond so these "poor disenfranchised" people can have their "free speech" protest in Central Park? YOU pay for the destruction instead of the non-protesting taxpayers. Sorry if I sound so irritated but it just irks me that people like you do not seem to understand that with freedom comes responsibility.

 

[tpahl]

Not talking about HOW-other than lawful; numbers-not a factor other than in areas that can accomodate and still be 'managed.' Time doesn't seem to be a factor.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Can you please restate your thoughts?

NYC has not asked for protestors to refrain from coming, just to follow the rules laid down for everyone's protection, most importantly, the greatest number of people who don't give a flying fuc*.

They have not asked anything actually. Instead they have demanded that protestors not come to central park or near madison square garden.

The protestors wish to assemble in a public park for peaceful purposes. The city has said no. that is a violation of the 1st amendment which states reafirms peoples natural right to assemble for peaceful purposes. It is really quite simple. You can come up with a hundred excuses for the mayor (who is one of the most liberal republicans in existance) but that is all they are... excuses.

People want to assemble. Government is stopping them.

Since -=D=- has appearantly decided not to answer this question, maybe you will. What do you think is the difference between a right and a priviledge?