Peaceful protests in Franklin Park have also been dispersed with excessive force, simply because the White House crew doesn't like it. Even non-protesters - innocent passersby - were being clubbed, pepper-sprayed, arrested, and hauled off to jail.
No. Subtilty is the slippery slope. When the truth is undiscoverable people decide that everything is relative and there is no truth. We quit looking for it. The social cost is high, as well as the actual dollar losses (think Enron and recent Wall Street debacles).Am I the only one who finds white lies worse than black?
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing...Sigh...
Remind me to never argue politics in a political town. Nobody ever gets the point.
Actually, no. The text of the law I posted was from 40 USC 6134. I think 40 USC 6132 or 40 USC 6135 deals with flags, banners, and signs. Those are illegal, too.It sounds to me like they can unfurl the banner, they just can't chant. Am I right?
No. Subtilty is the slippery slope. When the truth is undiscoverable people decide that everything is relative and there is no truth. We quit looking for it. The social cost is high, as well as the actual dollar losses (think Enron and recent Wall Street debacles).
Well, this too, MZ. What I was really trying to draw attention to, though, is what I see as a frightening trend toward relinquishing (with no resistance, no struggle) our rights as citizens which are outlined in the first 14 amendments to the US Constitution. "It's in the name of national security." "Our government wouldn't do it if they didn't have good reason." "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried." Some of these things seem trivial, yes. The problem is when no one sees all the trivial violations in gestalt. If you make a couple of insignificant exceptions to the first amendment, then a couple more, then wait until everyone has forgotten those two, and then those four, and add a couple more and a couple more, pretty soon the IS no first amendment. I can think of a couple of historical parallels where this sort of thing happened. The people said "it could never happen here," then before they knew it, it did happen there. It was too late to do anything about it. Of course, I know I'm being alarmist, and it really never could happen in the good ole USA. And of course, our democratically elected government would never lie to us, so all the suspensions of freedoms and privacy are just temporary; we will get those back once we have captured and subdued all the terrorists (or worse, all the subversives who think they have a right to protest on public property.)If nothing else is ever posted on this site, this is one point I would like to see everyone understand and absorb. This sums up our entire social, political, religious and economic structuring right now.
Well, this too, MZ. What I was really trying to draw attention to, though, is what I see as a frightening trend toward relinquishing (with no resistance, no struggle) our rights as citizens which are outlined in the first 14 amendments to the US Constitution. "It's in the name of national security." "Our government wouldn't do it if they didn't have good reason." "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried." Some of these things seem trivial, yes. The problem is when no one sees all the trivial violations in gestalt. If you make a couple of insignificant exceptions to the first amendment, then a couple more, then wait until everyone has forgotten those two, and then those four, and add a couple more and a couple more, pretty soon the IS no first amendment. I can think of a couple of historical parallels where this sort of thing happened. The people said "it could never happen here," then before they knew it, it did happen there. It was too late to do anything about it. Of course, I know I'm being alarmist, and it really never could happen in the good ole USA. And of course, our democratically elected government would never lie to us, so all the suspensions of freedoms and privacy are just temporary; we will get those back once we have captured and subdued all the terrorists (or worse, all the subversives who think they have a right to protest on public property.)
Again, those arrested were not arrested for disturbing the peace - they were arrested for possessing a printed banner on public property. There was no indication that they were loud, blocking access, or infringing on any other person's rights.
If I missed something, and any of you know of any reports of the protesters were blocking access or making an inordinate amount of noise, or harrassing other citizens, please by all means bring it to my attention.
Otherwise, please explain to me (I'm a bit dense sometimes) how it can be illegal for a citizen to walk on a public sidewalk during normal business hours.
I do not recall seeing any mention, in that article, of whether or not "permits" were obtained.Do you know if they applied for a permit to protest?
For conservatives (or the establishment) to try and stop protests, even mildly violent ones, is really a dumb idea. People whose voices are not allowed to be heard become more subversive and ultimately revolutionaries, if their beliefs allows for it.
Here in Miami a couple years back the police department gratuitously brutalized some world economy summit protesters. It was pretty disgusting and no one was held responsible. The citizens committee set up to investigate the whole mess simply white washed it.