Oh, I dunno, maybe that, like any large group, the Republican Party has its fair share of morons? Do you want to defend everything that’s come from the desk of, say, John Dingell?
And as for those kinds of awards – please, they’re meaningless. I hear next year the award is going to an inanimate carbon rod.
Sorry, but often this is the only meaningful way to social progress. Police could have argued that Martin Luther King’s marches were taking their attention away from more pressing duties, his speech at the Lincoln Memorial could be argued blocking public property. But he was still right. Followers of Gandhi in India used truly disruptive non-violent techniques, but history applauds them.
UnuMondo
If you look at the actual act involved, I agree it’s minor. No one is injured, and no property is damaged. But if you consider the number of victims, i.e., the hundreds of folks who had to take an extra hour out of their day trying to find an alternate route to wherever, then it seems quite a bit more serious.
However, I am willing to concede that 25 years is much too harsh.
So what happened?
Did the gov veto it?
Has it passed?
Anyone prosecuted under it yet?
The way the bill is worded, it would be “terrorism” for bus or truck drivers to strike. By so doing, they are disrupting “commerce” of the state of Oregon.
Actually every march that King led/was a part of had all of the proper permits required of it. Plus, the whole March on Washington event in 1963 wasn’t unusual in the least, and since that particular event was widely publiced, people had time to aler their traffic patterns.
As for King’s non-violent protests being violent, how is sitting at a lunch counter violent?
How is not riding at the back of a bus, or riding a bus at all, violent?
In those cases the only violence came from the AssHatted Bigots/Klansmen/White Supremacists/Racists who attacked the sitter-inners.
And, being typical of the time, the attackers weren’t arrested or charged with any crime.:rolleyes:
When the big anti-war protests were going on, people here were saying that they should express their opinions some other way, because taking to the streets is disruptive and delays traffic, blah blah blah. Funny, I didn’t hear anyone saying the same thing about the big “support our troops” rally. (I didn’t get a chance to report this at the time and it’s been bugging me.) Or the St. Patrick’s Day parade, or the Thanksgiving Parade. Somehow, I don’t see how the efficient flow of vehicles should be our overriding social policy concern. When mass numbers of people feel the need to exercise their first amendment rights, of course it’s going to be disruptive. Is the first amendment intended to apply to only small groups of people? Once people organize into groups large enough to potentially make a difference, the government can take away their freedoms?
The pro-war rallies were not as big ironically.
No need to ‘demonstrate’ in favor of a popular opinion.
…especially not when the shooting had already started.
But did it pass?!?
AFAICT, it hasn’t been voted on yet.
The last notation on it was 03/24 Public Hearing held.
Maybe the measure was tabled?
errata, what do you know? Have you been following it?
Well I think it is worth noting these are legitimate state interest the state is trying to protect.
The state can prohibit any conduct that does implicate these interests.
On its face it is content neutral and as a result no strict scrutiny. At least no strict scrutiny right away.
Nor does it appear to facially be after expressive acts and so no strict scrutiny, at least once again not right away.
The real problem then, since this is a facially content neutral law, and applying the time, place, and manner analysis, intermediary scrutiny, the law must be narrowly tailored to serve the states interests.
The law may not burden a substantial amount of speech than doesn’t implicate the government’s interest. This test is not met. Here is why. Suppose Errata, myself, Dewey, Brutus, and all the participants here decide to march down the sidewalks of Seattle to protest GWB’s tax plan. Now lets suppose, however, it is my intention to obstruct commerce, disrupt the transportation system, and the educational institutions in the area and I act upon my intent by walking out into the middle of the road but everybody else remains on the sidewalk. Under this law, those on the sidewalk are just as guilty as I am although I am the only one with the intent to do what is proscribed by the statute and have solely committed the act to achieve my goal of doing what is prohibited by the statute. Under this situation more speech is burdened then is necessary to protect the state’s interest because only I have done something that could possibly implicate the state’s interest and nobody else has but the entire message has been censored since those on the sidewalk expressing the message and not possibly implicating the state’s interest. are also arrested.
Hence, the law would be over-inclusive and unconstitutional.
Aw, Daniel, you gotta be kidding. A mere public hanging wouldn’t drag me away from watching Terry & Bobby & Little E whup Jeff’s ass.
I haven’t heard much on it in a while. Last I heard, it’s chances weren’t that good.
I think it was probably a thinly veiled reaction to anti-war protests that hopefully will fade now that the war is over.
Twenty five years in prison if bus drivers in Yakima go on strike, that’s what the law boils down to. Their strike would disrupt commerce and transportation.
Is it legal to make a bus driver strike a felony punishable by 25 years in prison?
Dogface I said the ends, the goals, are legitimate, not necessarily the punishment.
Isn’t Yakima in WA?
Are the goals legitimate? Do we feel the need to shut down completely all dissent in this country? Because most of what is described there are the legitimate tools of dissent.
Stopping terrorism is a good thing. But we don’t need special laws to do it. If what a person is doing doesn’t violate the law, how can we call it terrorism? If it does, we prosecute them as an ordinary criminal; to do anything else grants a political recognition of stature which I for one am unwilling to grant. A killer is a killer whether he claims it was for money or Allah or the Holy Mother Church or for drugs.