quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I assume this is related to the “pro Palestinian” protests?

We have pretty good evidence that most of this crap is not being led by students and a large number of the protestors are not students… yet a number of schools are standing in the way of stopping violations of law.

As to protesting, like the KKK, if you need to be anonymous to protest, it ain’t a protest.

These events are stopping the students from going to class. The majority of the students want to go to class, get their degree, and move on.

Sorry but I disagree that these are nonviolent peaceful protests. That’s what the constitution guarantees.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I assume this is related to the “pro Palestinian” protests?

We have pretty good evidence that most of this crap is not being led by students and a large number of the protestors are not students… yet a number of schools are standing in the way of stopping violations of law.

As to protesting, like the KKK, if you need to be anonymous to protest, it ain’t a protest.

These events are stopping the students from going to class. The majority of the students want to go to class, get their degree, and move on.

Sorry but I disagree that these are nonviolent peaceful protests. That’s what the constitution guarantees.

Why would you assume that? trump's threats don't mention Palestine.

Read the link and then come back.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Did you read it? The article repeatedly refers to that.

They also threw out that if there were protests related to LGBTQ or Covid lockdowns that they could be targeted.

The quote of the president says nothing about which protests. The only ones there have been issues with have been the pro Palestinian ones.

Frankly, I’m fed up with folks thinking that their right to protest is superior to my right to complete my daily tasks without interruption.

The right is to protest government for redress of grievances not interfere with other people or commerce.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I assume this is related to the “pro Palestinian” protests?

We have pretty good evidence that most of this crap is not being led by students and a large number of the protestors are not students… yet a number of schools are standing in the way of stopping violations of law.

As to protesting, like the KKK, if you need to be anonymous to protest, it ain’t a protest.

These events are stopping the students from going to class. The majority of the students want to go to class, get their degree, and move on.

Sorry but I disagree that these are nonviolent peaceful protests. That’s what the constitution guarantees.

Why would you assume that? trump's threats don't mention Palestine.

Read the link and then come back.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Did you read it? The article repeatedly refers to that.

They also threw out that if there were protests related to LGBTQ or Covid lockdowns that they could be targeted.

The quote of the president says nothing about which protests. The only ones there have been issues with have been the pro Palestinian ones.

Frankly, I’m fed up with folks thinking that their right to protest is superior to my right to complete my daily tasks without interruption.

The right is to protest government for redress of grievances not interfere with other people or commerce.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I assume this is related to the “pro Palestinian” protests?

We have pretty good evidence that most of this crap is not being led by students and a large number of the protestors are not students… yet a number of schools are standing in the way of stopping violations of law.

As to protesting, like the KKK, if you need to be anonymous to protest, it ain’t a protest.

These events are stopping the students from going to class. The majority of the students want to go to class, get their degree, and move on.

Sorry but I disagree that these are nonviolent peaceful protests. That’s what the constitution guarantees.

Why would you assume that? trump's threats don't mention Palestine.

Read the link and then come back.

that might be a good idea to tell your people which protests are agreeable to you and your president ...

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I never said police could not arrest for blocking a public road. Both things can be true.

Or we can arrest for refusing to disburse for emergency vehicle.

It is not one or the other. It is both.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
In all honesty, I have read tge article and given the historical context, I infer he is implying to violent protest that we saw across the U.S. as pro Palestine. The article specifically mentions Columbia that was not just students and became violent.

I am not a Trump fan, but I cannot quibble at funds not mandated by Congress n being withheld from Columbia when it allowed students to be attacked trying to go to finals.

A protest that does not disrupt is not a protest. I draw the line at violence. I draw the line at using force to stop something.

~Ann

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Protest should be disruptive and non violent.

Terrorism is violence.

I have no problem w protest.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I’ll say it again. Protest should be disruptive and non-violent.
Nonviolent, sure. Disruptive, no.
Folks can be arrested for it (most likely that assumed the disruption violates a relevant penal code). If you can be arrested for it, it isn't a constitutionally protected right. The arrest cannot use force that is beyond the force necessary to effect the arrest given a totality of the circumstances. absolutely right.
One cannot wash grandma out of the street w a fire truck hose. You just said it depends on the totality of the circumstances. I agree. A single elderly lady who doesn't resist arrest for trespass, right, a fire hose is excessive. A grandma in a horde of protestors shouting violent slogans who refuse to move for the police and resist being moved? OK.

There are many ways the Jan 6 crowd could have protested, even disruptively, without violence. When you come to do violence, violence is what happens.

Trespass 3rd which is what a sit in will get you is a violation. By our Supreme Court case law that is not a crime. You cannot go to jail for it. The penalty is a 50 dollar fine. Now, if you want to fight w the police, refuse an order to disburse, things can change.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Did you read it? The article repeatedly refers to that.

They also threw out that if there were protests related to LGBTQ or Covid lockdowns that they could be targeted.

The quote of the president says nothing about which protests. The only ones there have been issues with have been the pro Palestinian ones.

Frankly, I’m fed up with folks thinking that their right to protest is superior to my right to complete my daily tasks without interruption.

The right is to protest government for redress of grievances not interfere with other people or commerce.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I assume this is related to the “pro Palestinian” protests?

We have pretty good evidence that most of this crap is not being led by students and a large number of the protestors are not students… yet a number of schools are standing in the way of stopping violations of law.

As to protesting, like the KKK, if you need to be anonymous to protest, it ain’t a protest.

These events are stopping the students from going to class. The majority of the students want to go to class, get their degree, and move on.

Sorry but I disagree that these are nonviolent peaceful protests. That’s what the constitution guarantees.

Why would you assume that? trump's threats don't mention Palestine.

Read the link and then come back.

quote:

Frankly, I’m fed up with folks thinking that their right to protest is superior to my right to complete my daily tasks without interruption.

quote:

when YOUR protest, disrupts MY life, you are impinging on MY rights -- and are therefore committing an illegal act -

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Right to Assemble. To gather I. A place private or public one is allowed to be

Oh yes there is. You want the S. Ct., cases.

Nazis marches down Main Street protesting against Jews, Catholics, and all that constitutional. That little act of protest march was actually disruptive to the community conscious that it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

You have said nothing to destroy my assertions. A protest should be disruptive and non violent. I never said disruption was a right.

We had both an out law mud show of the Clan protesting dorm here right across from a trans, gay protest. Guess what, they both follows the constitutional frame work and no one was arrested. To everyone’s credit, no one was arrested for violence or any violations of the law.

quote:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Right to Assemble. To gather I. A place private or public one is allowed to be

Oh yes there is. You want the S. Ct., cases.

Nazis marches down Main Street protesting against Jews, Catholics, and all that constitutional. That little act of protest march was actually disruptive to the community conscious that it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

You have said nothing to destroy my assertions. A protest should be disruptive and non violent. I never said disruption was a right.

We had both an out law mud show of the Clan protesting dorm here right across from a trans, gay protest. Guess what, they both follows the constitutional frame work and no one was arrested. To everyone’s credit, no one was arrested for violence or any violations of the law.

you aren't listening -

there is NO RIGHT to "protest" under YOUR definitional requirement requiring them to be disruptive --

show me the word "protest" in the first amendment, and then where it's your definition --

this isn't really a constitutional question, Joshua - it's your definition --

but here's the text of the 1a, just to save you the trouble of looking it up

quote:

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.

45 words, and protest isn't one of them

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Is anyone asking the right questions?
If Columbia has federal funding cancelled, can students and staff (and paid Soros shills ) still protest (whatever that means) on their own dime and not the taxpayers?

Does cutting Federal discretionary funding constitute 1st Amendment rights?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Is anyone asking the right questions?
If Columbia has federal funding cancelled, can students and staff (and paid Soros shills ) still protest (whatever that means) on their own dime and not the taxpayers?

Does cutting Federal discretionary funding constitute 1st Amendment rights?

Careless phrasing there at the end, Judge. I'll assume you're asking whether cutting discretionary federal funds would be a violation of First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly--in other words, to protest.

And surely it would if dependent on the content of the speech.

But the discretion isn't the president's--it's Congress's.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The fact is I do not refute that. A protest needs to be disruptive. I have said it more than twice disruption can be illegal and must be non violent. That is what civil disobedience is. We have seen the effectiveness of appropriate civil disobedience. I dm all for it.

Disruption can be legal as on the Nazis March.

A set in of a local business that refuses to serve gay people is not even be a crime in KY as trespass 3rd is a violation by definition not a crime. It would be disruptive, non-violent, and technically not a crime here. The reaction to it might be criminal or otherwise incur civil liability.

It is not zero sum. Both things can be true at once.

A protest should disrupt. A protest must never be violent.

Yes, one does have a right to protest. That protest can even disrupt without committing crimes. So long as violence is not used, apply the correct measure of law enforcement and judicial intervention. When violence is used apply the correct level of law enforcement and judicial intervention.

I would pardon a non violent sit in. Mist would not need to as statutory expungement would catch them. I personally would never pardon someone committed of assaulting police or seditious conspiracy. That is just me.

I would not pardon someone who in mass pushed through a police security line to stop elected officials. I would prosecute a cop who used excessive force to effectuate an arrest against a person protesting looking at all the facts of the particular case.