Even when the people in a crowd want to let emergency vehicles through, it still takes time to move a crowd. Each person has to learn that there is an emergency vehicle that is trying to get through and then each person has to step out of the way (along with any stuff they have) - including following others around obstacles (such as parked cars).So, nothing should be done preemptively? We should wait until an actual life is lost or until an actual life is put in jeopardy?Are you implying that protesters wouldn't let an ambulance through in an emergency? Should they be removed from any place they are because and ambulance MIGHT need to go through the spot they're using?
By this logic they need to ban the ownership and use of vehicles in nearly every major metropolitan area, because an emergency vehicle might need through at some point, and we all know how close to gridlock those urban streets come every day.
making handguns easier to get than produce
That is a ridiculously exaggerated assertion and you know it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, nothing should be done preemptively? We should wait until an actual life is lost or until an actual life is put in jeopardy?
And if someone agrees to that, then the next step is to preemptively break up their gatherings that don't block anything, because a crowd on the sidewalk could easily spill into the street, right?
I don't play that game, where you demand concessions one step at a time until we're all the way over to one side. The democrats are stupid enough to fall for that every time -- I'm not. At some point (and I'm there now) I have to say, "Enough. I've taken another step -- now it's your turn, or we don't move anymore."
That is pretty much exercising Liberty, Kirth. Well said.
What we have is a guarantee that Congress shall make no law respecting the right to peacefully assemble. OWS should be able to assemble - in a place where that assembly isn't a potential public health danger.
It says peacefully, not unobtrusively. In fact half the effectiveness of assembling IS making a nuisance out of yourself.
What/where could one assemble without the government being able to make the argument that there was a risk to public health?
We don't live in bubble wrap. The world is dangerous. The government is not your mommy.
making handguns easier to get than produceThat is a ridiculously exaggerated assertion and you know it.
Its true in some neighborhoods. Why is the second amendment so sacrosanct that we abide by it despite a tangible link to an enormous body count but people will roll over for the possibility of a slightly increased chance of death from an ambulance taking an extra 30 seconds to go AROUND a place that ambulances shouldn't even be going in the first place?
But those arguments apply to any crowds not just protestors. If you're going to disperse protests on those grounds you should apply the same reasoning to parades, rallies, concerts anything that draws a large crowd and potentially disrupts traffic.parades, rallies, and concerts require permits and are organized gatherings whose plans have to address issues such as access by emergency vehicles.
OWS, by contrast, is a random, barely planned gathering.
Pretty much this. They have no permit or organization, and therefore are illegal.
Pretty much this. They have no permit or organization, and therefore are illegal.
What law are they violating? People have a constitutional right to assemble. Any law preventing that is itself illegal. Any law interpreted to prevent that is an illegal interpretation.
he most famous civil gathering in US history was Woodstock - which wasn't in a city. It managed to be quite effective without deliberately blocking the flow of emergency vehicles.
Quite effective at doing what? A bunch of hippies threw a concert and did enough drugs to whipe out a herd of elephants.
So you think that people protesting the actions of wallstreet having to meet at a farm out in bupkiss indiana MIGHT be loosing a fair amount of the effectiveness that protesting at wallstreet brings?
Please let this go. Or make it a separate thread.
Its already a separate thread. Which managed to be oddly productive (in so far as that word CAn apply to internet conversations)
People seem to have the idea that lives are greater than rights. Thats simply not true. People DIE for their rights all the time. This idea that you don't have your rights when your rights are dangerous is simply never applied to any other right we have, the second amendment being the most concrete example.
The entire point of rights is that they're important. Free speech and the ability to petition your government for change in the only way available to someone that doesn't own their own TV network can IS important enough for people to die for. Its certainly more important than some nebulous, half baked claims that someone is going to die because of a 30 second increase in ambulance reroutes.
Why is the second amendment so sacrosanct that we abide by it despite a tangible link to an enormous body count
There is no "tangible link". Gun control doesn't effect violent crime rates one way or the other.
Pretty much this. They have no permit or organization, and therefore are illegal.What law are they violating? People have a constitutional right to assemble. Any law preventing that is itself illegal. Any law interpreted to prevent that is an illegal interpretation.
Let's see. They are violating Denver permit laws, public safety ordinances, public disturbance ordinances, and arson laws, to start off with. I could also point you to this law.
Weren't the protesters in a park? Or a planned rally/demonstration/whatever the mayor was speaking at?Yes
And by "deliberately parks itself in the flow of emergency vehicles" you mean "is in the road anywhere", right?
Ambulances routinely have to go through parks. You didn't know that?
Let's see. They are violating Denver permit laws, public safety ordinances, public disturbance ordinances, and arson laws, to start off with. I could also point you to this law.
And which of those overrides the us constitution?
The entire united states is a free speech zone. The entire POINT of free speech is you do NOT have to ask the government "mother may I" before you start ragging on the government for its corrupt dealings with wallstreet, because oddly enough government have a tendancy to either flat out say no or find ways to limit the groups impact.
Let's see. They are violating Denver permit laws, public safety ordinances, public disturbance ordinances, and arson laws, to start off with. I could also point you to this law.
And which of those overrides the us constitution?
The entire united states is a free speech zone. The entire POINT of free speech is you do NOT have to ask the government "mother may I" before you start ragging on the government for its corrupt dealings with wallstreet, because oddly enough government have a tendancy to either flat out say no or find ways to limit the groups impact.
Excuse me? The state should have every right to restrict where protests occur. There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting up a specific area for them, and keeping them in that area.
Furthermore, the first amendment was one of the founding fathers' more boneheaded decisions.
|
No, I'm asking if that wasn't where they were removed from."It was a pretty quick operation, simply with the thought that we would remove the encumbrances along the way that blocked the public right of way," Hancock (Denver Mayor Michael Hancock) said. "The attempts to stay ahead and to continue to work with them have always been there and will continue to be there, but we simply can't allow structures in the park or blocking public right of way, again creating unsafe condition for them and well as for pedestrians."
So ambulances don't factor into this at all? Just a nebulous 'unsafe condition' and 'right of way'?
We have never had an unrestricted right to speech. Try shouting "fire" in a crowded building.
This is more like saying that the building is on fire, but you have to go down the block and THEN yell it.
Seriously, this argument is poor. No one is in danger from the content of the speech. The content is not causing a panic, their presence is not causing a panic. Their presence is not very likely to cause any serious harm by blocking the emergency vehicle traffic allegedly coming through a park
It was the arch stone of the counter-culture movement. Its message was strong for decades after the event ended.
ZZzzzzz... more nebulous handwaving and liberal arts buzzwords. What did woodstock DO?
OWS at least has attention specifically on what wallstreet has been doing, even if the media's been doing a great job of blurring he message. I don't have much hope of them succeeding in say, bringing back Glass-Steagall, but despite what the media says they have a relatively concrete message.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, the first amendment was one of the founding fathers' more boneheaded decisions.
If you're serious about that -- not just playing devil's advocate or whatever -- then there's no middle ground possible here, and absolutely zero room for discussion. Without freedom of expression, association and assembly, and religion, what you have left is totalitarianism dressed in fancy clothes.
|
|
I'd like to know what kind of proof you want. If I show you a Youtube click, you'll claim its an isolated incident. If I show you a statement by an official, you'll claim its nebulous.
I said 'a situation'. One situation fulfills that.
Show me the justification the official is using for his nebulous statement and it is no longer nebulous. (And no, 'it could happen' is not justification enough. Again, one situation is enough.)
Furthermore, the first amendment was one of the founding fathers' more boneheaded decisions.If you're serious about that -- not just playing devil's advocate or whatever -- then there's no middle ground possible here, and absolutely zero room for discussion.
Oh, and why is that? Just because I recognize that a blanket guarantee was a stupid idea doesn't mean I don't think people should be able to say what they wish.
Not having a fist amendment doesn't mean no freedom of speech. Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, and the like all do just fine without a guaranteed freedom of speech, and so could America. The first amendment makes unrealistic promises the the government cannot, should not, and does not attempt to adhere to. This whole occupy business is an example. We'd be better off if we acted like Britain or Canada and allowed people to say what they want, but didn't actually write it in our constitution.
Excuse me? The state should have every right to restrict where protests occur. There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting up a specific area for them, and keeping them in that area.
The state should not. The state does not. When you are upset at the actions of wallstreet you are allowed to show up AT WALLSTREET to tell them that, face to face. This sort of extra governmental action on the part of citizens is a necessary part of democracy because the government tends to ignore people.
Restricting the place away from the thing you're protesting undercuts the message. Limiting the size of the protest limits the number of people who can protest, and thus limits the rights of those excluded from the zone due to running out of room.
It also limits the effectiveness of your speech, since they put you in some out of the way place away from the cameras, keeping media attention away from you.
Furthermore, the first amendment was one of the founding fathers' more boneheaded decisions.
Its one of the few things they got right. Exactly what part of it don't you agree with? What first amendment right has a government anywhere, any time, ever had the power to remove and not abused it for its own ends?
We'd be better off if we acted like Britain or Canada and allowed people to say what they want, but didn't actually write it in our constitution.
I disagree. The Founders' intent was that the government should derive its power from the consent of the governed -- not the other way around. Britain and Canada eventually figured out that monarchy wasn't a good form of government, but it sure took them long enough.
Furthermore, the first amendment was one of the founding fathers' more boneheaded decisions.Its one of the few things they got right. Exactly what part of it don't you agree with? What first amendment right has a government anywhere, any time, ever had the power to remove and not abused it for its own ends?
See above. The first amendment is a completely unrealistic promise.
We'd be better off if we acted like Britain or Canada and allowed people to say what they want, but didn't actually write it in our constitution.I disagree. The Founders' intent was that the government should derive its power from the consent of the governed -- not the other way around.
All the countries I listed are either republics or functional republics.
The first amendment is a completely unrealistic promise.
From the standpoint that the government automatically gets to control us all, that's true. From the standpoint that the government exists at the voters' discretion, however, it doesn't work.
All the countries I listed are either republics or functional republics.We'd be better off if we acted like Britain or Canada and allowed people to say what they want, but didn't actually write it in our constitution.I disagree. The Founders' intent was that the government should derive its power from the consent of the governed -- not the other way around.
See the rest of my post quoted.
The first amendment is a completely unrealistic promise.From the standpoint that the government automatically gets to control us all, that's true. From the standpoint that the government exists at the voters' discretion, however, it doesn't work.
The first amendment doesn't even exist in other western countries, and yet the government still exists by voter discretion. All it does in America is make us feel good about our freedom while either not being followed by the government or being used as an excuse to tolerate things that the government should be slamming it's foot down on (I'm looking at you, WBC funeral protests).
I'm still waiting for you to name even one OWS meeting that has been as impactful as Woodstock.
I can't think of any. Then again, I think Woodstock sort of came to symbolize the era after the fact -- I don't think that at the time it had anywhere near the importance, of, say, the Kent State massacre.
I'm still waiting for you to name even one OWS meeting that has been as impactful as Woodstock.
Any of them. Zero impact has as much impact as zero impact.