Your Right to Protest & Free Speech Has Been Made a Felony

[mpd]

Some rockin-ass debate here for sure. The irony is not lost on me. Like everyone here, I am just waiting for the knock on my door...

 

[longearedfriend]

knock knock
.
.
.
.
who's there ?
.
.
.
.
Doris
.
.
.
.
.
Doris who ?
.
.
.
.
.
Doris locked, that's why i'm knocking !

 

[resinryder]

That's a rather stretched interpretation don't you think? Unless the zones are miles wide then you still have the right to protest without being arrested. You still are able to seek redress for grievances. You just can't do it by getting in the politician's face. After what happened to Gabrielle Giffords it's no surprise it wouldn't even surprise me if they call this the "Gabby" law on Capital Hill. The irresponsible exercise of our rights is what gets them limited and rather then blaming the government for addressing a problem we ought to be blaming the nutjobs that try to use our rights inappropriately to futher their personal agendas. We the taxpayers get stuck with the bill to protect these politicians and having a "zone" allows for a fewer number of secret service to secure things.

I know the politicians of our day don't deserve the respect that once went with the offices they hold but we as a people still need to respect the office. Cindy Sheehan is a great example and the need for this bill may even have started because of her. Sure it was tragic that she lost her son in Iraq but her son reenlisted knowing his division would be one of the first to go and on the frontline. He knew the dangers he was facing and his decision to go wasn't based on Bush's reasons for going into Iraq. Yet because his Mom decided the reasons weren't good enough felt she was perfectly justified to go set up a camp of protestors on Bush's front lawn at his home in Texas and call him out. Showing a total lack of respect for the office or consideration for the people in Bush's home town. This sort of thing sets the stage for everyone who isn't satisfied with a politician's answer (which is virtually everyone at some point or another) to think it's perfectly acceptable to get in these people's faces and do thier best to publicly humiliate and/or harm them.

Quite frankly if I wanted to protest a particular politician the last place I'd want to do it is at an event of thiers where they have control of the media and armed security. I'd much rather do it at a place where I'm squarely protected by my constitutional rights, I don't have to worry about armed security or police and if the media happens to show up it will be because of a genuine interest in the message of the protest rather then hoping for a conflict with the politician being protested.

As for the executive order well if it comes down to that dire a state of emergency I'm not going to be wanting what the government hands out. After seeing things like FEMA trailers do you really want to trust FEMA food? Besides, executive orders typically only last as long as the president who sign's them stays in office. The Republican's have already made it clear they want to waste the first part of their term (if a republican gets elected President) undoing or trying to undo everything Obama has done. So if Obama doesn't get reelected this executive order may never even be put to use.

So I guess if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Right?

 

[bentom187]

whats more troubling than this 347? how about this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

"President Obama signed an Executive Order for “National Defense” yesterday that claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime, for self-declared “national defense.”

The EO claims power to place any American into military or “allocated” labor use"


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...n-seize-any-person-any-resource-any-time.html

 

[FunkBomb]

Everyone and everything has been bought and paid for, and if that didn't work they were taken out. Period. The collusion between corporations, government, and military is very real.

If you don't believe it check out a guy named John Perkins. His book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" will open your eyes.

-Funk

 

[nugghead]

After what happened to Gabrielle Giffords it's no surprise it wouldn't even surprise me if they call this the "Gabby" law on Capital Hill. The irresponsible exercise of our rights is what gets them limited

There is no need to pass a new law regarding what happened to Rep. Giffords. It was already against the law to shoot someone in the face when it happened.

Shooting someone in the face is not an irresponsible exercise of our rights. What is irresponsible is an argument that a deranged psychopath's criminal acts should result in the restrictions of the rights of all good citizens, rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[SeaMaiden]

Oooo! I'm feelin' that! ^^^

Or is it due to people who grow collectively/cooperatively, on land they either don't own or don't have a physical residence on (septic & waste issues), doing large grows that everyone nearby knows about at least due to the smell? And I think we can include the guerilla and squatter grows in this, there's been a lot of discussion about those in these meetings I've been attending. Ranchers ain't diggin' finding tents and crap on their land.

What part of this is people NOT violating other people's rights? They don't have the right to do that, just because they're breathing... so no, the argument does not stand.

Stay Safe!

Hmm... I'm not sure which "they" you're referring to, so I'm gonna try and work with the quote you used. The part that is people NOT violating the rights of others is the first part--people growing collectively or cooperatively. Being a renter does not afford one fewer rights, including the grow. We are afforded that right by Proposition 215 and SB420.

The parts where the rights of others may be violated is squatting or growing on land that has no septic, using travel trailers in which the tanks aren't emptied regularly or properly (this is a real health & safety issue, IMO, and in the opinion of the planning department).

But one cannot be afforded fewer rights simply for not owning the land directly. I personally already have an issue with guerilla growers, depending on how they do their thing and where (private vs public lands, for example).

whats more troubling than this 347? how about this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

"President Obama signed an Executive Order for “National Defense” yesterday that claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime, for self-declared “national defense.”

The EO claims power to place any American into military or “allocated” labor use"


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...n-seize-any-person-any-resource-any-time.html

Yep, we're here. Except maybe it's worse than what Orwell wrote about.

 

[TLoft13]

btw it's emperor palpatine

I just watched videos about what's happening the states (detroit, alabama) in my macro-economics class

Because what happened to Detroit is TOTALLY an macroeconomic problem.

 

[mrcreosote]

Meh,

Small change.

Seeing how they can now legally assassinate or indefinitely hold you, what's a little slave labor or theft of property...

And you guys whined about a little torture...kid's stuff.
You wanted change?
You got it.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I know the politicians of our day don't deserve the respect that once went with the offices they hold but we as a people still need to respect the office.

I can't anymore. I've lost all respect for 99% of the politicians and what their office's stand for. Corporatist thieves, puppets, and useful idiots. Fuck em.

I'm not going to be wanting what the government hands out.

You'll be the exception. Hoards of helpless nanny state product people would need the government to feed, shelter, and clean them. They'll starve to death looking for a handout rather than trying to figure out how to survive.

 

[Mia]

If you don't believe it check out a guy named John Perkins. His book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" will open your eyes.
-Funk

That's a good book.
Another good one is the creature from jekyll island by G.edward griffin. Some of it gets a little weird, but a loot of good info.
Oh yeah, we're fucked!

 

[Snoopster]

I know the politicians of our day don't deserve the respect that once went with the offices they hold but we as a people still need to respect the office.

The fuck we do.

Our government has no interest in your health, safety or well being. They ignore over half the country that wants marijuana legal.
They ignore science in almost every debate.
They sell their votes to pacs and lobbyists.
They say one thing then expect us to smile when they vote the other way.
They want us to be divided and they are doing a good job at dividing us.


Our government is supposed to be of the people, not against the people.

I feel like our government is my enemy and that I need to take measures to protect my family against it.

I have absolutely no respect for pretty much any political office.
Anyone that spends their life living it the way they think the majority wants them to, is an asshole.

Passing a law is not going to create respect for the office. Respect is earned, not taken by passing another law.

 

[HempKat]

No... Wrong, wrong and WRONG!

There is no such thing as an "Irresponsible Exercising" of your rights. You're either violating someone's rights or you aren't. That's it.

Your thinking is a product of the mainstream bullshit. Probably time to turn off your tv, radio and newspapers/magazines for a year or so.

This is just more of the same anyway... We live in a modern Gestapo, get used to it.

Stay Safe! (This means buying your ammo in cash and in small lots)

If you violate someone's rights while exercising what you feel are your own rights then you are exercising your rights irresponsibly. Like the guy who shot Gabby Giffords, he could say he was exercising his right to express dissatisfaction with the government but in doing so he violated Gabby Gifford's right to life without being shot in the head (you know the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). So yes, even though many of you don't want to face it as it might interfere with what you feel is just, there is indeed such a thing as irresponsible exercising of rights. That's why it is the Freedom of speech that is protected and not the freedom of expression.

 

[HempKat]

So I guess if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Right?

I guess it depends on who's definition of wrong you're going by. If you're going by your own personal definition based on nothing but your own opinion and view then you may have something to worry about. If however you are operating within the letter of the law then no, you have nothing to worry about.

Back in July of 1976 me and about 2000 other pro-marijuana protestors took over Lafayette park across from the White House and held a protest rally. During the protest hundreds of joints were passed out for free and we all smoked right there. Afterwards we all peacefully marched over to the Lincoln Memorial and continued the protest by sitting down on the steps leading up to the memorial. Between us and the memorial was a wall of about 2 or 3 dozen cops in full riot gear. We all sat there pulling out bongs, pipes, joints, etc. and lit up freely in plain site of the police. Not one person was hurt, not one person was arrested and not one cop had to lift a finger against us. So yes I do believe in the notion that if you behave in a responsible civilized manner you can protest free from fear or worry of being silenced.

 

[HempKat]

There is no need to pass a new law regarding what happened to Rep. Giffords. It was already against the law to shoot someone in the face when it happened.

Shooting someone in the face is not an irresponsible exercise of our rights. What is irresponsible is an argument that a deranged psychopath's criminal acts should result in the restrictions of the rights of all good citizens, rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

The rights in question are defined by the first amendment and reads "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."

Nowhere in there is it guarenteed you can protest wherever you want. The law does not prohibit you from protesting but rather from protesting within a certain distance of Politicians protected by Secret Service.

I don't see how it's irresponsible to make such a law because of a deranged psychopath when it was the open interpretation of the law that allowed the deranged psychopath to get so close as to be able to successfully shoot Ms. Giffords in the face. What rights do you feel you are losing if the law now says you got to exercise your rights x number of feet away from a politician with Secret Service Protection? Is there some right I'm unaware of that guarentees you can get up in the face of whoever you please?

Also it wasn't just that one guy, what about these idiots tossing glitter bombs and similar stupid shit in the faces of political candidates? I'm sure if we carefully scour past news reports about protests at political rallies we can find lots more examples of people going too far and ruining it for the rest of us.

 

[HempKat]

I can't anymore. I've lost all respect for 99% of the politicians and what their office's stand for. Corporatist thieves, puppets, and useful idiots. Fuck em.

Just for clarity I'm not talking about what the office stands for after it is tainted by corruption but rather what the office stands for as defined by the intentions of our forefathers who created our government.

You'll be the exception. Hoards of helpless nanny state product people would need the government to feed, shelter, and clean them. They'll starve to death looking for a handout rather than trying to figure out how to survive.

Sucks to be them but clearly after Katrina anyone depending on the government to save them is counting on an unreliable savior.

 

[HempKat]

The fuck we do.

Our government has no interest in your health, safety or well being. They ignore over half the country that wants marijuana legal.
They ignore science in almost every debate.
They sell their votes to pacs and lobbyists.
They say one thing then expect us to smile when they vote the other way.
They want us to be divided and they are doing a good job at dividing us.


Our government is supposed to be of the people, not against the people.

I feel like our government is my enemy and that I need to take measures to protect my family against it.

I have absolutely no respect for pretty much any political office.
Anyone that spends their life living it the way they think the majority wants them to, is an asshole.

Passing a law is not going to create respect for the office. Respect is earned, not taken by passing another law.

I never said or implied that the law was designed or meant to create respect. I'm saying that such laws end up being created because of people who refuse to respect such things merely because they're not getting everything they want their way. That's how children behave.

 

[mrcreosote]

Gee Whiz,

And all this time I thought shooting someone in the face was a crime.
I think even the most liberal of philosophers wouldn't consider that to be freedom of speech or expression.

Then again I need to get updates on the PC Handbook...
I could be wrong.

 

[HempKat]

Gee Whiz,

And all this time I thought shooting someone in the face was a crime.
I think even the most liberal of philosophers wouldn't consider that to be freedom of speech or expression.

Then again I need to get updates on the PC Handbook...
I could be wrong.

Philosophers perhaps not but then again, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was hardly what one would call a philosopher either. I put it that way because in the Freedom of Speech debate often times people get it confused with Freedom of expression. There was a case a couple years back in my region where a girl was arrested for burning the American Flag in the middle of a busy highway. When she was arrested alot of people came out of the wood work trying to say the police violated her freedom of speech. When it was pointed out that she was not speaking to anyone just burning a flag in the middle of a highway and disrupting morning rush hour traffic all those same people said that she was speaking non verbally and therefore it was still a freedom of speech issue. Of course this was all blown out of the water by the girl's statement that she found the flag on the side of the road and was doing what she was taught by her dad to do when you find a fallen flag on the ground which is to burn it.

The overall point I'm making is that in this country all Freedom of Speech grants you is the right to express your beliefs or opinions without being silenced just because your beliefs or opinions don't match everyone else's beliefs or opinions. It does not guarentee you the right to do it any old place you want or any old time you want or any old way you want. I'm guessing it wasn't quite spelled out in more specific terms because in the day and age those rights were added to the constitution people had a whole lot more respect for institutions and much more common sense then people today seem to have.

 

[whodare]

The rights in question are defined by the first amendment and reads "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."

Nowhere in there is it guarenteed you can protest wherever you want. The law does not prohibit you from protesting but rather from protesting within a certain distance of Politicians protected by Secret Service.

i dont think the right to ban protest in "certain areas" is one of the "implied" federal government powers in the constitution...

I don't see how it's irresponsible to make such a law because of a deranged psychopath when it was the open interpretation of the law that allowed the deranged psychopath to get so close as to be able to successfully shoot Ms. Giffords in the face. What rights do you feel you are losing if the law now says you got to exercise your rights x number of feet away from a politician with Secret Service Protection? Is there some right I'm unaware of that guarentees you can get up in the face of whoever you please?

is there a law stating you can't get up in someones face?

Also it wasn't just that one guy, what about these idiots tossing glitter bombs and similar stupid shit in the faces of political candidates? I'm sure if we carefully scour past news reports about protests at political rallies we can find lots more examples of people going too far and ruining it for the rest of us.

ohhh no some one got glitter bombed call out the s.w.a.t, bring out the tear gas and flash-bangs....


arrest the motherfuckers who commit crimes, and let the rest protest peacefully...

i mean come on now throwing glitter on someone can be considered a crime...


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57373843-504083/denver-student-could-face-jail-time-for-attempted-mitt-romney-glitter-bomb/

(CBS/AP) DENVER - A 20-year-old college student faces up to a year in prison after police say he tried to throw glitter on Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney as the candidate greeted supporters in Denver following Colorado's caucuses on Tuesday.

Denver police said Wednesday that they charged Peter Smith, a student at the University of Colorado-Denver, with causing a disturbance, throwing a missile and unlawful acts.

According to CBS Denver, Smith faces up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted in the "glitter bombing," which has been used by some activists to protest a politician's opposition to same-sex marriage.

Security pulled Romney back from the crowd and Smith was immediately whisked away Tuesday night.

According to CBS Denver, Romney didn't appear to get much glitter on his outfit. Smith was held by police for 5 hours in handcuffs.

"I am not sorry that this has caused some publicity and embarrassment for him; no not at all," Smith told CBS Denver. "The people of Colorado are not going to stand by and watch the country be turned over into the hands of Mitt Romney."

Denver police say the action is a threat, no matter what object or substance is thrown.

"You can say what you want to say, but you cannot physically put something on someone or assault them with something. That is not within your rights," Sonny Jackson with Denver police said, according to CBS Denver.

Smith is reportedly due back in court on March 7.