Whoops; hit the wrong button.
For another, history shows us that any current power structure does not like gatherings at all, of any people, regardless of age or other affiliation. That’s why it was enshrined in the US Constitution as a right, because the founders of this country saw how important it was, and recognized that any government will move to stop gatherings, unless specifically restricted from doing so.
Said right applies only to a peaceful assembly. A gathering where drug use and underage drinking are commonplace and even condoned absolutely would not qualify for First Amendment protection, by any stretch of the imagination.
I’m sure they don’t. But I fail to see how “a gathering of young people”=“Kent State”, other than that both the protesters at Kent State who got shot and the guardsmen who did the shooting were young people.
But I don’t see another Kent State happening. It’s not the 70’s, students aren’t radicalized, you’re not seeing any sort of largescale organized student violence.
I stand by what I wrote. NY cannot shut a place down because cops find people smoking 3 times in one night. It has to be over a period of time, indicating an unwillingness or inability of the owner/management to conduct their business in a lawful manner.
However, I also think that these laws are bullshit. I don’t smoke, but I think it’s retarded to proscribe a legal, private business from allowing patrons to use a legally purchased product. I think the phrase I hate most in this world is “compelling interest”.
Yes, but you prolly dint see that men would hijack planes and fly them into the WTC, either. What you don’t see is immaterial. And if there are no gatherings, there will be no new Kent State incidents.
At this event, there was a security checkpoint and people were searched for drugs, alcohol, and weapons. Said items were confiscated. Drug use and underage drinking were not condoned.
But the event might have been illegal so this is OK. :rolleyes:
Did you guys watch the video? They have a helicopter & full combat gear. The video shows someone getting beaten. But hey, they might have not had all the right permits. Some of the people might even have had DRUG
Oh, come on. I can’t count how many gatherings of various sorts I’ve been to on the mall in DC, dating back to the 60s and as recently as 2003, surrounded by all the symbols and actual presence of government power. I saw lots of cops, but all they seemed interested in was illegal or dangerous activities. Government entities at all levels issue permits for gatherings all the time. You may say that’s because they are required to by the constitution, but I think that the burden is on you to demonstrate that “history shows” any such thing, at least in the US.
And since I just saw your continuation post, I’ll mention that gatherings of people are pretty common in this country. For example, tomorrow night, right here, there’s going to be a gathering of somewhere between 20,000-30,000 people, to watch the Nationals play Cleveland. In October, the Rolling Stones are coming to the MCI center here. They’re sold out. That’s another 20,000 people per concert. The first amendment was set up to allow political assemblies, which, admittedly, neither of these are, but then, neither was that rave.
If you want, though, I could find you attendance records for political rallies or conventions.
From the Utah County link.
(emphasis mine)
It could be that the people running the Rave got the EMS permit and believed they had met their legal requirements.
And do you want to know what is probably the real deal?
You get the other permit and you find out you need to hire some off-duty cops to work as security guards.
The government is allowed to regulate commerce and this rave in Utah was a business venture.
Here’s an arguement I can get behind. It’s true that a lot of police departments need better training in crowd control. I think a lot of times the police can help cause more problems simply because they’ve never been properly trained to deal with the situation they find themselves in. As for your other point, I think it depends on how widespread the illegal activities are at the club or stadium.
Marc
Regardless, it appears that the gather was illegal as they did not have all the proper permits. Thus the rave should be shut down, just a bar should be shut down for having an alcohol license but not a health certificate or vice versa.
Those who paid for admission didn’t even get the location of this rave until the day of the event. Is there a reason for this other then not wanting to attract attention of law enforcement?
Marc
To keep the losers out. 
Part of a rave is that it is an experience. A part of the desired experience is that it is secret, special, and disengaged from the rest of the world. For the 8-10 hours that most raves last, one of the goals is for participants to feel that they are in a unique “reality” with little or no connection to the “real” world.
Withholding the exact location until just prior to the start time helps to create that atmosphere.
:dubious: Yeah.
You really have not been around very many people on E have you? They tend to be pretty damned peaceful
You must have missed the part about the security guards being arrested for possesion of coke.
It is just silly to argue that drug use is not a prominent part of raves. You may favor repeal of drug laws, so do I. But not for minors.
To me it’s completely wrapped up in the War on Drugs bullshit. What’s the problem with the event? It’s illegal. Why? Because there are illegal drugs there. Why are they illegal? Because they’re bad. How do you know? Because people take them in illegal circumstances.
Why do they sneak around and not get the proper licenses? Because the organizers know there will be illegal drugs there. Why should the organizers try to prevent the presence of illegal drugs?
This thread has ballooned to page 2 in record time and still nobody has pointed out any problems with raves* other than they are “illegal” and that “there are illegal drugs there.” Neither of those things in and of themselves present any harm to anyone. The truly bad/dangerous things (assault, DUI) that raves might bring are are already illegal (and are things that happen everywhere, not just raves), you don’t need to break up the party to stop them.
And I’d also like someone (who has been in both) to tell me that they would feel safer in a room full of drunks than they would in a room full of people taking illegal party drugs.
Other than Stars & Stripes for the troops overseas, do we even have any “state run newspapers” in the US? 'Cause if we do, they’re about the only people out there who aren’t sending me offers to subscribe.