posted on March 28, 2003 11:36:51 AM new
I read that article earlier today.
Reminded me of when the outcry came for Maher's head when he spoke out about the 'cowards'...many American's didn't want to continue to support his sponsors.
posted on March 28, 2003 11:38:07 AM new
"That's a cost of doing business. It's a tax deductible business expense....if uncovered by your insurance."
So the person(s) causing the disruption should bear no responsibility? Obviously, I have a different opinion.
"The problem of emergency vehicles is the responsibility of police who approved the parade route. I believe that they usually maintain either a detour or a lane for emergencies."
I'm not following you here. Which approved parade route are you talking about?
Here's an example of the kind of protest I'm talking about:
A couple of weeks ago, two guys decided they wanted to protest Citibank and Citibank's investment choices. So they decided to make a banner that was several hundred feet long and wide. They then decided to climb to the roof of the building next to the one I work in and attempt to hang the banner. Using some sort of moutain climbing equipment, they climbed over the ledge of the roof and were dangling about twenty feet down from the roof.
Now by the time they had got themselves into position, multiple police and fire units arrived on scene. The two protestors were then trying to unfold their banner but were having all sorts of problems. They couldn't get the banner to unfold. The cops and firemen eventually made it to the roof and were leaning over the edge talking to the protestors. While this was going on, foot and vehicle traffic was stopped for the entire block in front of the building.
EMS trucks arrived at the scene in the event anyone needed medical treatment.
I saw all this as I walked out of my building to grab a sandwich. At the time, nobody on the street knew what the two guys were protesting or even why they were there. In fact, people assumed that they were window washers and were stuck or something.
Eventually, they figured out how to unfurl the banner and then climbed back up to the roof where they were apparently arrested.
My point is this - these guys wanted to make a point to Citibank. I have no problem with that. They made a huge banner to depict their protest visuslly. I have no problem with that either. Then they decided to protest in an unlawful way that put a drain on city resources and cost not only the City, but local business. Ok fine. You want to do something like that, its my opinion that you better be ready to open your wallet and pay for it. And if you can't immediately pay, expect your wages to be garnished.
posted on March 28, 2003 11:39:34 AM new
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (edited to clarify- nothing wrong with canning Maher). As I have stated more than once, the left must learn that Free Speech does not mean everyone must agree with you, nor that there are no economic or social costs for exercising your free speech rights. It also doesn't mean that the media must cover your position, nor give you a podium from which to speak.
[ edited by REAMOND on Mar 28, 2003 11:51 AM ]
posted on March 28, 2003 11:55:47 AM new"And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. As I have stated more than once, the left must learn that Free Speech does not mean everyone must agree with you, nor that there are no economic or social costs for exercising your free speech rights. It also doesn't mean that the media must cover your position, nor give you a podium from which to speak.
Only an idiot would believe that Free Speech means that everyone must agree with you.
Anti war demonstaters include left, right and middle - Republicans and Democrats. Non-violent protests and free speech should not have a cost.
The media covers whatever they want to cover. If they choose to cover an event, the stage is set and a podium provided.
Helen
ubb ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 28, 2003 11:56 AM ]
posted on March 28, 2003 11:59:22 AM new
Well Reamond, I'd think by now that you know I'm in agreement with that statement.
I was just discussing 'social pressure' with donny in the other thread. Of course they have the right to speak out, and others have the right to broadcast their disagreement in ways that sometimes effects their pocketbooks.
posted on March 28, 2003 12:00:47 PM newOnly an idiot would believe that Free Speech means that everyone must agree with you.
Their name escapes me at the moment, but there was a poster on here that claimed the board was hi-jacked by people with opinions that didn't agree with the left about the Iraq war. That these insurgents with different opinions were the ruin of this board. Now I wonder who that was ???
posted on March 28, 2003 12:18:50 PM new"Their name escapes me at the moment, but there was a poster on here that claimed the board was hi-jacked by people with opinions that didn't agree with the left about the Iraq war. That these insurgents with different opinions were the ruin of this board. Now I wonder who that was ???"
That statement is right, although I don't know who said it. The board is effectively ruined in my opinion, for various reasons. There is a political imbalance here that is noticeable. But it reflects the feeling of Americans about this war. We determined yesterday that only 30% of those polled are anti-war.
Helen
ubb ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 28, 2003 12:20 PM ]
posted on March 28, 2003 01:02:33 PM new
I should add, that although I agree with the statement, I don't agree that those with different opinions should be called insurgents. Or that the term hi-jacked is appropriate.
posted on March 28, 2003 01:09:30 PM new
The good news is that now Portland and some other cities are going to just jail the law breakers for 4 days and still cite them...
That should slow things down abit..
posted on March 28, 2003 03:17:51 PM new
Nearthesea I think Helen and others believe the board is ruined because they cannot produce any facts to substantiate their not backing of the war and that their hatered of President Bush overrides their sense of logic.
People that support the war and our troops have been producing facts but that is too much for them to grasp...
posted on March 28, 2003 03:42:52 PM new
NearTheSea
I'll admit that "ruined" was a strong word to use. I used it because that was the description used in the post that Reamond quoted. Actually, this board may be even better for you.
We have gained a few good posters but lost a lot more.
Helen
ed.to address poster
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 28, 2003 03:43 PM ]
posted on March 28, 2003 08:51:26 PM new
In Minnesota they are talking about having the protesters that get arrested to be fined $200 to cover the police and court costs.
posted on March 28, 2003 10:10:41 PM new
That's a great idea. If it costs a city $100,000 to clear up an unlawful protest and 100 protesters are arrested, then each protester should be fined $1,000. Plus an extra 500 bucks for good measure.
posted on March 29, 2003 08:12:46 AM new
That ought to silence the opposition....Fine them into silence. Apparently the ONLY unlawful protestors would be those who disagreed with Bush the Lesser...
Stalin and Lenin couldn't thought of a better idea... Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
As the Constitution is shredded by the current administration....So goes ALL the amendments.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
[ edited by mlecher on Mar 29, 2003 08:13 AM ]
posted on March 29, 2003 08:20:54 AM new
okay mlecher - enlighten me please...since you believe I'm so naive. How does one get arrested for protesting when they are not breaking any laws? To just march peacefully, within the limits of the rally permit, would NOT get one arrested. To break the law and get arrested because of that....is inforcing the 'law' not....supressing the protesters speech. So...tell me how I'm seeing this wrong.
posted on March 29, 2003 08:31:02 AM new
I doubt that many here question the right of Americans to protest, demonstrate, or rally. The key issue is whether such a protest is conducted lawfully.
I agree that the crowd control required to contain these events costs money and takes law enforcement away from their usual assignments, but a certain amount of dissent must be expected and allowed to be expressed.
When any of these gatherings results in an illegal disruption of life for others, it should be halted. Chaos and anarchy are often the real goals of organizers, who want the publicity associated with violence at such events. ANSWER is a good example of this - they'll shove their socialist agenda into the spotlight any way they can.
Get a permit, follow the rules, remain non-violent, non-intrusive and non-destructive, and don't place your rights above those of others.
What gets me is the people who attack police or destroy property during peace rallies - as if THAT isn't a contradiction . . .
If you recall, and I'm betting you don't, a woman was arrested for carrying an anti-war sign in a St. Patrick's Day parade. Yes, she PERSONALLY didn't have a permit. But I'm 100% sure neither did 99.9999999999999999% of the rest of the marchers, the principality did not issue everyone a personal permit. Yet she was singled out for walking with a sign that disagreed. And the guy who giggled and laughed so hard about it while reporting it, admitted he jumped into an IRISH parade to wave his AMERICA flag to SUPPORT the President's decisions.
As for fine and penalties, who is going to define what is disruption and destruction and what is subject to these penalties and fines. I hope after that they get around to using the same attitude for restricting gun ownership. Once they eliminate the voices of dissent, they will need to eliminate guns. And you saps will be more than willing to hand them over for you own security
Stalin and Lenin would be so proud.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
[ edited by mlecher on Mar 30, 2003 09:28 AM ]
[ edited by mlecher on Mar 30, 2003 11:31 AM ]
posted on March 30, 2003 04:06:47 PM new
Lets see the parade may have had the atomoshpere of pro-troops and this person took it up themselves to be a disruption...
posted on March 30, 2003 09:24:20 PM new
Some may consider breathing valid, some may consider it ..excuses, excuses.
War is costing more money, does that make it more good bad or what. What's the point.
Having children costs money too.
Nukes cost money too? Some may think that ok, because for one thing, it creates employment.
Let's all 'worship' money, that's the most important 'thing' on earth.
It seems that in the case of 1 ‘peacenick’ at St. Patrick’ day march, the supposed servants of the law (police) deemed/judged that in that case only; one who was not demonstrating an opinion consistent with ALL others was somehow worthy of isolating.
“How about my rights if I'm a business owner on Fifth Avenue here in Manhattan and my business is shut down because protesters are effectively denying access to my establishment?”
“disrupt businesses and emergency services.” I would say that ALL protests of any significant size disrupt businesses and emergency services, (should emergency services want to get through).
Someone on here the other day was talking about a ‘wardrumming’ protest in a mall, surely that would ‘disrupt’/hinder.
What can you do, make a law that any protests are only to be held on empty blocks in barren land.????
Or do as some countries do and prohibit protests.
Or leave it to the discretion of a soldier or a policeman, or a 5th avenue shopkeeper.
posted on March 31, 2003 01:46:29 AM new
After being gone a few days I came back to find a couple people got it - I used that word because it is ugly and vulgar.
The truth is I would tell the firetrucks to go ahead and roll over any protestors that lie in the road in front of emergency vehicles like so many speed bumps.
However the current situation in this country is that you can go peacefully to where you might be effective in your protest and stay out of traffic on the sidwalk and be arrested because you don't have permission to protest.
Does nobody have the brains anymore to see that in a free country there can be no permit required to protest? That it is a farce to stifle speech?
Do you need a permit to speak? It is about speech. Are you free to speak only if you go where nobody can hear you? Some freedom!
And yes it is very much like what happened to the civil rights marchers. They had the goons and dogs set upon them and were arrested for saying out in public where people could hear what the authorities did not want heard. I do very much dare to compare them.
The difference is now most of you argree with what the civil rights protestors had to do. After you got your noses rubbed in it. Some of you the word shames you for how it was used. It fell off the tongue easy and unthinking. As you should be ashamed today for unthinkingly saying shut up. If they are wrong ignore them not silence them.
I wish there was a special hate filled slur word for protestor so you'd have it to remind you how they were treated later.
As to the majority being in favor of war I will say the majority of people were in favor of the black people keeping an inferior social condition. They were in a majority but they were still wrong. Some of you become blinded by your love of democracy as a system. It does not always automatically produce justice or honor. It can not magically shield it's participants from being wrong.
I happen to be white (well kind of an ugly pink) but I think if I were black rather than insist I never hear that slur I'd use it to beat society over the head for it's very existance.
Right now we are so close to the era it was used so easy that it is like somebody let gas at a card party and the smell is still in the air. Maybe eventually it will be a distant memory but it still stinks.
posted on March 31, 2003 03:18:53 AM new
"As to the majority being in favor of war I will say the majority of people were in favor of the black people keeping an inferior social condition. They were in a majority but they were still wrong. Some of you become blinded by your love of democracy as a system. It does not always automatically produce justice or honor. It can not magically shield it's participants from being wrong."
Yeah, Here Here, and Amen too.
You see bear, it’s not important if gravid believes that statement or not or if he has a history of lying or not, but my observations and power of logic tell me that statement is true.
And even some good humour too.
It’s ok gravid, pink is beautiful too.
posted on March 31, 2003 06:22:30 AM newDo you need a permit to speak? It is about speech. Are you free to speak only if you go where nobody can hear you? Some freedom!
So by your protesting you're infringing my freedoms not to want to hear it...
Does nobody have the brains anymore to see that in a free country there can be no permit required to protest? That it is a farce to stifle speech?
The permits are for large crowds and marching in the street... you can stand in an empty field or park or rent a hall...
There is no stifling of free speech... I will say it again, you infringe upon my freedom not to hear it...
As I said before, to even compare anti-war protesting to civil rights is a slap in the face of all those civil rights protestors...
All anti-war protesting does is give comfort and aid to the enemy, but seeing how few here have ever put their life on the line against an enemy, I can see how they can become so misguided...
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
posted on March 31, 2003 06:43:09 AM new
Please provide some examples of commentary on this right to not hear. Is it something that I missed in Jefferson's papers? Is it perhaps in the works of Paine? Perhaps it is in the writings of George Wallace? Yes I am very weak in that area. That must be where it is. Enlighten me on the right not to hear anything you don't want. Exactly how do you determine that ahead of time? Oh - OK - If it is from the wrong person you'll know ahead of time it is wrong without even hearing it. How economical of your limited time and attention!
