22-05-2003 03:43									#91
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: The freedom to assemble is not a freedom to block others. Would you agree that abortion protestors should be allowed to block abortion clinics?

There's a difference between standing on a public road and blocking a private building.

	22-05-2003 03:44									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

oh and if creating traffic problems is illegal, than does that mean I can sue the Illinois Tollway authority?

	22-05-2003 03:44									#93
	Tired of ads?

chegitz -

quote: If you read it that way, the right to peacably assemble doesn't exist, as there is no way more than three people can gather at any location without impeding the flow of traffic. BTW, the protest was in a park.

Didn't you just refute yourself?

	22-05-2003 03:44									#94
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark LA Times, on the Seattle riots " According to police, a group of 200 to 300 WTO protesters -- edged out of downtown by the curfew -- moved into the streets of Capitol Hill, where they blocked two major intersections and threatened officers with rocks, bottles and Molotov cocktails. Several windows at local businesses were smashed. At least some protesters charged the police line, department spokesmen said. "

Yes, the famous attack on Capital Hill, where no protest was occuring. The media wasn't there, so they are taking the police's word for it. According to the people who live in that neighborhood, however, there was no protest. The police showed up, closed off the neighborhood, and attacked it. The people arrested were shoppers and people going out for the evening. The police caught a lot of heat for that one.

	22-05-2003 03:45									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned Lord of the Mark, I am not so sure that Che does not have a case. If the building was condemned only that morning of the raid, the raid appears to have been a sham. If so, it violated the 4th Amendment. Che, assuming that the raid was an illegal search and siezure, how did the raid impair the commies 1st amendment rights?

as far as i can tell the building was in violation, and the law required them to cease residence as soon as it was condemned.

If i drive down the highway at 56 MPH in a 55 zone,with a bumper sticker that says "screw the cops" can i make a first amendment case that most people dont get stopped at 56MPH????

	22-05-2003 03:46									#96
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: There's a difference between standing on a public road and blocking a private building.

If they are standing on a public sidewalk, do they now have the freedom to block others?

	22-05-2003 03:47									#97
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker chegitz - Didn't you just refute yourself?

Apparently so. OWN GOAL!

Actually, these days, the only place protest is allowed are inside fenced off locations far from the event being protested. Even parks aren't allowed. You can only protest out of the media eye.

	22-05-2003 03:47									#98
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Imran, I shouldn't have to lecture to you on law. Standing in a street is not a violent action... I fail to see how a protest that blocks a street isn't a peaceful assembly.

It doesn't say anything about peaceful assembly. It doesn't say all non-violent protest is always protected. If you block the street, you are violating the rights of others to go where they wish.

quote: oh and Imran, the Constitution sets out limitations for holding public office... restrictions for anything other than the minimum requirements are unconstitutional.

Um... not quite that simple. Why is any thing other than those minimum requirements unconstitutional? Only because the Supreme Court said so. Plenty of law profs and others believe that decision to be wrong. Btw, that reading by the SC invalidated a term limit provision. Many thought that was wrong, because minimum requirements should be able to be augmented. It makes sense to ban convicted felons from office.

However (and this is the point) it says NOWHERE that you cannot augment the minimum requirements at a later date by law. It simply sets out some requirements.

	22-05-2003 03:48									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

If you got a ticket for 56, the judge would probably let you go. I got a ticket for 31 in a 25 and the judge said to the officer, "Don't waste my time" and dismissed the case.

	22-05-2003 03:50									#100
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker If they are standing on a public sidewalk, do they now have the freedom to block others?

The second they physically prevent someone from entering the building, it's assault.

	22-05-2003 03:52									#101
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: The second they physically prevent someone from entering the building, it's assault.

Thank you for reversing your position . By standing on the street they are physically preventing people from using that public road.

Btw, it wouldn't be assault. Assualt is imminent fear of physical harm. Being not allowed to go somewhere because of a human chain is not enough for assault.

	22-05-2003 03:52									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yes, the famous attack on Capital Hill, where no protest was occuring. The media wasn't there, so they are taking the police's word for it. According to the people who live in that neighborhood, however, there was no protest. The police showed up, closed off the neighborhood, and attacked it. The people arrested were shoppers and people going out for the evening. The police caught a lot of heat for that one.

and i should take your word for that? after you posted one-sided story to start this thread, after you denounce the mainstream media for missing the story when they had in fact covered it (and given both sides) when you justify protests that violate the law by deliberately obstructing streets and sidewalks, protests which you had disingenously referred to as peaceful, when you choose to question my own ideological beliefs because i dont share your interpretation of the 1st amendment, an interpretation NOT shared by any Supreme Court justice, even the most liberal,


I will assume your take on the capital hill riots is more spin, and i will not bother doing the research to see what the different sides are. Lord knows you wont try to find both sides.

	22-05-2003 03:52									#103
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: It doesn't say anything about peaceful assembly

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are you basing your statements on the North Korean Constitution? I'm talking about the USA.

	22-05-2003 03:52									#104
	Increase Your PM Length

Imran, are you suggesting the SC may have been wrong interpreting the Constitution?

chegitz -

quote: Actually, these days, the only place protest is allowed are inside fenced off locations far from the event being protested. Even parks aren't allowed. You can only protest out of the media eye.

There are laws preventing the media from going to these fenced off areas to report on the protestors? Seems like a failure of the media...

	22-05-2003 03:55									#105
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Imran, are you suggesting the SC may have been wrong interpreting the Constitution?

Perhaps in that case they were. I'm not sure. Like I've always said, the SC can be wrong, they just can't be unconstitutional.

quote: I'm talking about the USA.

Yeah, so am I? It says people have the right to peacefully assemble. It says NOTHING about having an absolute right to peaceful assembly, which is what you've been arguing.

	22-05-2003 03:56									#106
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: The second they physically prevent someone from entering the building, it's assault. Thank you for reversing your position . By standing on the street they are physically preventing people from using that public road. Btw, it wouldn't be assault. Assualt is imminent fear of physical harm. Being not allowed to go somewhere because of a human chain is not enough for assault.

You misunderstood my post. Perhaps I need to rephrase and specify... if somebody uses an action to prevent someone, it's assault or some other legal term that refers to physical harm...

Imran... I've noticed that you like to nit-pick little semantical mistakes that I make, but you don't address the issue.

	22-05-2003 04:00									#107
	Remove this text

quote: It says people have the right to peacefully assemble. It says NOTHING about having an absolute right to peaceful assembly,

I hope you have a good minor...

Is this what's known as "Imran's Constitutional Interpretation"?

quote: you have freedom of speech but not ABSOLUTE freedom of speech

quote: you have freedom of religion but not ABSOLUTE freedom of religion

quote: you have freedom of press but not ABSOLUTE freedom of press

I'm so glad that there are more rational people that interpret our laws.

	22-05-2003 04:02									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I've noticed that you like to nit-pick little semantical mistakes that I make, but you don't address the issue.

I AM addressing the issue, and I am doing so by pointing out the little semantical mistakes. I'm a lawyer, that is how we argue AND win!

It seems silly to me to whine about someone using semantical issues when discussing the Constitution, but that is what it is all about : semantics.

Like I've constantly said: You cannot protest if it violates the rights of other people. There are NO absolute rights in the Constitution. All can exemptions and usually those exemptions deal with the rights other people have.

Take for example shouting 'FIRE' in crowded movie theatre. You'd argue you have a right to free speech, as said in the 1st Amendment. But you don't because you are violating the rights of others by causing a public disturbance resulting in injury (most likely). There is NO Constitutionally specified right to not being subject to injury, but everyone agrees with the principle. The same applies with blocking streets. You are violating the rights of others to be free of public disturbances and get where they need to go, in the process preventing economic injury or because there is a right to movement and travel. They ain't in the Constitution, but it is a right that the states have given to its people.

	22-05-2003 04:03									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Sava -

quote: The second they physically prevent someone from entering the building, it's assault.

Then it's "assault" when any protestor intentionally blocks people from moving about on public property, not freedom of assembly.

	22-05-2003 04:04									#110
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I'm so glad that there are more rational people that interpret our laws.

Everyone that has been on the Supreme Court this century would agree with the three statements you've posted up there.

There is no absolute freedom of speech (yelling fire in a movie theatre). There is no absolute freedom of religion (you can't smoke peyote, even if that is your religious belief). There is no absolute freedom of the press (the government can prevent you from printing things that harm national security).

Go ahead, Sava, look it up.

	22-05-2003 04:11									#111
	Support Apolyton

Sure there are exemptions... you can't yell "FIRE" in a theatre, etc.

But then you have to prove that blocking traffic is more harmful than restricting the freedom to protest whatever the people are protesting.

That's how laws like that come about. Somebody proved that the freedom to yell fire wasn't as important because the consequence of doing so.

So Imran... PROVE to me that blocking traffic is a terrible enough offense to justify the restriction.

IMO, I think that police should be able to break up protests that block streets. But that doesn't justify the on-topic action of the police. That's my point. In your crusade to dodge the point, you failed to address this and thus we skewed into this off-topic tangent that is irrelevant.

	22-05-2003 04:16									#112
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Sure there are exemptions

THEN THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT!

quote: But then you have to prove that blocking traffic is more harmful than restricting the freedom to protest whatever the people are protesting.

The amount of money lost to business by roads being clogged up is staggering. This is common sense. Trucks can't move, people can't make meetings or go to work. For days the city is paralyzed. If people can't go to work, then how will anything get done?

This is just common sense that the results of blocking traffic is terrible enough to prevent protesters from blocking the streets.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you can ask LOTM and Adam Smith both how they enjoyed Washington DC when the protestors came to town?

quote: I think that police should be able to break up protests that block streets. But that doesn't justify the on-topic action of the police.

Because the protesting groups having weapons to attack police with should be protected, right?

	22-05-2003 04:17									#113
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

constitutional freedom can be summarized to a simple formula: everybody has the right to do whatever he likes to, unless he disturbs the constitutional rights of other people or the community. so indeed there is no absolute freedom.
constitutional law tries to create a balance between the colliding rights of individuals/community. (at least it works this way in Germany but I would be surprised if it would be any different in the US)

	22-05-2003 04:18									#114
	Suffering from ads?

Sava -

quote: You misunderstood my post. Perhaps I need to rephrase and specify... if somebody uses an action to prevent someone, it's assault or some other legal term that refers to physical harm...

So what's the difference between an abortion protestor using public property to block someone from entering a clinic and another protestor standing on public property to block people driving to the same clinic (or any other business)?

quote: Imran... I've noticed that you like to nit-pick little semantical mistakes that I make, but you don't address the issue.

Imran isn't using semantics, we just pointed out your double standard.

Imran -

quote: You cannot protest if it violates the rights of other people. There are NO absolute rights in the Constitution. All can exemptions and usually those exemptions deal with the rights other people have.

Congress shall make no law...sounds absolute to me. But you're correct, the fact we all have rights limits what we can do.
However, since freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, the definition of freedom already contains a caveat that limits what we can do. So freedom can still be absolute without meaning we can run around violating each others rights.

quote: Take for example shouting 'FIRE' in crowded movie theatre.

Ugh, not one of Holmes better moments.

quote: You'd argue you have a right to free speech, as said in the 1st Amendment. But you don't because you are violating the rights of others by causing a public disturbance resulting in injury (most likely).

We don't have a 1st Amendment right to say or shout what we want while on other people's property, especially when the property owner has contracted with patrons to show a movie in exchange for money. Holmes brought the potential for injury into what is clearly a contractual situation...

	22-05-2003 04:21									#115
	Inflate your Upload Space

True, Berz, but I was merely making a point. Everyone knows about 'Fire' in a theatre, even Sava. The point I was making is that rights are constrained by other rights. You can't step on the rights of others while exercising your own rights.

	22-05-2003 04:31									#116
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: True, Berz, but I was merely making a point. Everyone knows about 'Fire' in a theatre, even Sava. The point I was making is that rights are constrained by other rights. You can't step on the rights of others while exercising your own rights.

IŽd even go further: yelling "fire" in a theatre - even in an empty one - has nothing to do with exercising freedom of speech, as long as there obviously is no fire in the theatre.
in that case of course you still are free to do nonsense. but IŽd rate the freedom of doing nonsense as less important than the freedom of speech.

	22-05-2003 04:40									#117
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Imran: In response to the loss of money in DC, well then they have every right to move their businesses out of the DC area. Part of living in an area is knowing about potential problems. DC, being the capital, is more prone to large protests. I fail to feel sorry for people that suffer because of this.

quote: Because the protesting groups having weapons to attack police with should be protected, right?

It isn't illegal to own a slingshot.

Let me clarify my point. You can choose to address it or not, I don't really care, but I am not going to respond to any more of your dodging.

My point:

The police were wrong, used illegal means, and violated the civil rights of the individuals mentioned in the thread.

	22-05-2003 04:44									#118
	Inflate your Upload Space

Imran, agreed.

C'mon Sava, why would one group of people have a freedom to assemble on public property (btw, the 1st Amendment doesn't even mention where this freedom of assembly exists) but not others who are using public property to reach other assemblies? If I want to go to the park to visit with friends - freedom of assembly - why do protestors have a greater right to block me?

	22-05-2003 04:44									#119
	Tired of ads?

Your point is your head.

	22-05-2003 04:49									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: C'mon Sava, why would one group of people have a freedom to assemble on public property (btw, the 1st Amendment doesn't even mention where this freedom of assembly exists) but not others who are using public property to reach other assemblies? If I want to go to the park to visit with friends - freedom of assembly - why do protestors have a greater right to block me?

create another thread if you want to debate this