Well aware of the extension. They asked for 2 and got i.
But when you bust up people in a demonstration, that does not end their right of assembly? What alternate reality do you inhabit?
This inane argument you proffer is no different than you value property values over human rights. That is why you suck up to the power of the rich over the people. You don’t care about human rights, you care about the power of the owners, who you somehow identify with. If the people demonstrate in a public place, which is the only place demonstrations make sense, you claim the space as yours and deny anyone else the right to use it. That works for you somehow.
I could show you a copy of the extension if you need it. Here it is down the post about 4 steps.
I guess breaking the law by beating people does not bother you. But in Detroit the police asked if the occupation would disband until the parade was over. The truth is the occupation has a place donated that will allow them to stay indoors over the winter anyway. But it all went peacefully. That is because people who think like you were not involved.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
As long as they are not disturbing the peace they can talk continuously among themselves until hell freezes over.
[/QUOTE]
So does freedom of speech and right to assemble include the right to be heard, or is it only OK if you talk where no one can hear you?
You posted a picture. How did you conclude the protestor was peaceful and/or not breaking the law?
I’ll just re-ask your question back to you. Can I force you to listen to me?
The right to be heard does not presuppose other rights are ignored. It does not mean you can shout down other people who have assembled to speak freely. It does not mean you can take over public property in an occupation. It does not mean you can disturb the peace of others.
Your argument is completely bankrupt of reality. Nobody, NOBODY was attacked for permitted demonstration. You can’t be that dense as to not understand that you don’t have the right to take over public property. It went peacefully in Detroit because they got a permit from the city just like any other group is required to do for parades and demonstrations on public property.
No you can’t make me listen to you. That’s the problem. Its far too easy to let someone protest under your terms for a brief time, say you’ve done your duty, then tell them to shut up and go away, returning to business as normal. It effectively undermines your free speech.
It’s not my terms, it’s society’s terms. It’s just common sense that we as a society don’t have 24/7 demonstrations or allow groups to take public land away for personal use. It flies against the tiniest concept of a peaceful coexistence. It also has nothing to do with the concept of the freedom to assemble. When this was penned into the constitution we were fighting against a monarchy at a time in history when opinion against the King was an act of subversion to the crown. The right to assemble is a natural extension of free speech but again, it is not at the exclusion of other people’s rights.
We don’t want fuzzy bunny rallies every day anymore than we want KKK rallies yet the most vile members of society can hold their meetings indefinitely and speak freely forever regardless of how much we disagree with them.
This letter, written by a faculty member to the chancellor at UC Davis, is absolutely stunning:
what’s stunning is that a faculty member admitted organizing a protest that in his words were: “In the highest tradition of non-violent civil disobedience”.
Civil disobedience is just another word for breaking the law. Did he obtain permission to do this? Schools allow protests all the time. Berkeley is the center of the universe for wingnut jackasses howling at the moon. More power too them if they secure the schools permission.
I’d fire his ass if he organized this without going through the proper channels. Any problems that resulted are all on him.
Can you quote the “stunning” part?
Here’s one -
It’s somewhat stunning how much of a huffy, self-important little twit this clown is.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - So long, gonzo.
"Some demonstrators are planning to occupy retailers on Black Friday to protest “the business that are in the pockets of Wall Street.”
Nice. It’s called black friday because many retailers become profitable on this day. Let the layoffs begin.
This is a myth.
Cite
uh no, it’s not. If you are in the retail business then the Christmas season is a substantial part of their sales. It doesn’t literally mean THIS Friday but the season is crucial.
wiki: “The Christmas shopping season is of enormous importance to American retailers and, while most retailers intend to and actually do make profits during every quarter of the year, some retailers are so dependent on the Christmas shopping season that the quarter including Christmas produces all the year’s profits and compensates for losses from other quarters.[16]”
The “occupiers” appear more and more as nothing but anarchists without a clue.
I’m not denying that it’s an important day to retailers. I’m refuting the specific claim that the day indicates the point that books turn from red to black.
Shit, people get trampled to death at WalMart all the time on Black Friday. If they stand in front of the $99 televisions, these protesters are going to look back on pepper spray with fondness.
I didn’t realize one had to get permission to organize a protest.
Why? Because he’s not an administrator?
Here is an admin with a similar letter: Confessions of a Community College Dean: An Open Letter to Chancellor Katehi of the University of California, Davis
The chancellor is the one who called in the police, who then used pepper spray.
So how would you have handled the situation differently?
Because he is a huffy, self-important little twit.
Regards,
Shodan