4 ms·

It's important to remember that even fundamental rights are subject to things like time, place, and manner restrictions. The right to free speech does not gener

by Kalium 7y ago

It's important to remember that even fundamental rights are subject to things like time, place, and manner restrictions. The right to free speech does not generally include doing so at 150Db at 2am in a residential neighborhood. It also sometimes includes restrictions like not blocking public right-of-ways while assembling in public. Freedom of religion does not extend to freedom to engage in the practice of human sacrifice. I understand that not everyone shares this understanding. I also understand that not everyone agrees that such restrictions are reasonable.

grecy 7y ago
I understand and agree with everything you said. My understanding is that around 2000 people were arrested[1] for peacefully assembling. It wasn't 2am, and they were not sacrificing any humans. In the case of Naomi being arrested that I posted above, she very clearly knew the sidewalks are public, and she was very clearly not breaking any laws, and was arrested anyway. Of course charges were later dropped, because the Police very well knew they had nothing on her. So when the Police in the USA don't like your perfectly legal use of 'right at assemble' they arrest you, fingerprint you, make sure you get a record and are out of the way for a while, then just kick you out the back door when they're sick of you. That doesn't sound so great to me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Arrests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Arrests
- lawlessquestion 7y ago
  Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights. The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement
  - grecy 7y ago
    > Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights So you somehow feel better about your rights being deprived because "sue everyone". In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal. But they stopped it anyway. So it achieved nothing, and the 'right to assemble' is a myth. > The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement Ah, the true American dream. Sue someone for a ton of money, and you don't even have to feel bad about it because it's not even their money!
    - lawlessquestion 7y ago
      Better that then the successful plaintiff being left holding the bag when their civil rights are horrifically violated. Excessive force cases can and do result in death and disability not including whatever mental trauma. Better the people that the state that employs law enforcement bear the cost associated with their actions, then victims of civil rights violations are unable to collect against a bankrupt defendant.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        Any comment on the "In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal" aspect?
      - grecy 7y ago
        And better yet would be your right to assemble actually being worth a damn, and you never being arrested for doing something that is supposedly legal. You're so caught up in the whole charade of "Money = Life" you don't even realize there should never have been an arrest or a legal battle in the first place, if the American people really do have a right to assemble. Now if they don't, your discussion is valid I suppose.
        7y ago
  - acollins1331 7y ago
    Yeah well the fact that the police officer doesn't have to pay for their version of malpractice is stupid as hell.
  - wcunning 7y ago
    Except that under the doctrine of qualified immunity that case would be thrown out for an infinite number of tiny reasons. Check out the Institute for Justice for a good run down based on cases they've fought.
unlinked_dll 7y ago
the point of protest is to disrupt however. Limiting the ability of a peaceful assembly to be disruptive effectively neuters that assembly.
- hirundo 7y ago
  What would be an example of limiting a peaceful assembly in a way that neuters it? Would you consider blocking a road to be peaceful? I wouldn't. If it were only about limiting a disruptive message, I'd agree, but it's not clear that's what you mean.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    What about Occupy Wall Street? In order to be successful they needed to put continuous pressure on the financial district. Authorities forced them to disband by closing the park at night. Since protests (and social movements in general) rely on momentum, this effectively neutered the protest.
    - hirundo 7y ago
      There were a lot of reports of health issues in Zuccotti Park, e.g. "like an open sewer—with people urinating and defecating in public." At some point that becomes a hazard to people beyond the protesters. Mitigating that hazard by banning overnight camping, so that it can be cleaned, does not seem oppressive if enforced in a content neutral way. It's hard to see how the city can do that job well while tents are pitched all over.
      - harimau777 7y ago
        The problem is that makes it difficult bordering on impossible to have a successful protest. As I understand it, protests work by putting stress on a system in order to force change. In cases where the protest overt actions such as police brutality or discrimination, it may only be necessary to provoke a response and then rely on the injustice of the response to apply pressure. E.g. when black people in the Civil Rights movement insisted on their rights and were met with violence it made it impossible for society to ignore the injustice of the system. However, when trying to change policy or overall behavior it is often necessary to apply pressure by outlasting the other side. An example would be striking workers trying to outlast management. Since protests, and social movements in general, rely on momentum, and constant pressure, kicking protesters out even temporarily undermines the ability to successfully protest. is over a specific unjust action it may only be necessary to provoke a It seems to me that for issues such as police brutality, discrimination, or unjust laws it's possible to have successful protests that are relatively short term. That is because the strategy is to purposefully to provoke a response that society won't tolerate (e.g. during the Civil Rights movement where black people would insist on their rights knowing that they would result in violence and thereby demonstrate the injustice of the system). However, it seems to me that movements that o
jancsika 7y ago
The problem with such generic reminders is that they could easily affect the flow of conversation by being automatically plastered asymmetrically across any forum or social media network at very low cost. For a small amount of money I could essentially pick at random five amendments out of the bill of rights and concern troll them on social media forums while ignoring the others. There's no alarm bell that goes off when someone does that. To counter this you could make at least one concrete link between your list of potential concerns to the OP's comment about Occupy.
- Kalium 7y ago
  You're right! I could definitely have been more specific. The article cited in the comment I responded to claimed that a person characterized as arrested for political views was arrested for blocking a public right-of-way. The primary reason I did not list this above is because it functions as an open invitation to endlessly debate if the public right-of-way was blocked or not, how relevant or legal related laws are, and so on. That would have been, in my opinion, not a useful, interesting, or substantive discussion. Almost every party involved would have attended having already decided what was true and ready to argue it forever. So I skipped it in favor of a more subtle point - restrictions are both allowed and accepted.
harimau777 7y ago
I agree with you that all rights have some sort of limitation. However, I think a fair question would be wether it is possible to meaningfully cause change while operating within the limitations that are currently placed on freedom of assembly.
gdhbcc 7y ago
If it can be subject to restrictions then it is simply not a fundamental right, it is merely a privilege.

by Kalium 7y ago

grecy 7y ago

I understand and agree with everything you said. My understanding is that around 2000 people were arrested[1] for peacefully assembling. It wasn't 2am, and they were not sacrificing any humans. In the case of Naomi being arrested that I posted above, she very clearly knew the sidewalks are public, and she was very clearly not breaking any laws, and was arrested anyway. Of course charges were later dropped, because the Police very well knew they had nothing on her. So when the Police in the USA don't like your perfectly legal use of 'right at assemble' they arrest you, fingerprint you, make sure you get a record and are out of the way for a while, then just kick you out the back door when they're sick of you. That doesn't sound so great to me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Arrests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Arrests

lawlessquestion 7y ago
Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights. The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement
- grecy 7y ago
  > Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights So you somehow feel better about your rights being deprived because "sue everyone". In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal. But they stopped it anyway. So it achieved nothing, and the 'right to assemble' is a myth. > The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement Ah, the true American dream. Sue someone for a ton of money, and you don't even have to feel bad about it because it's not even their money!
  - lawlessquestion 7y ago
    Better that then the successful plaintiff being left holding the bag when their civil rights are horrifically violated. Excessive force cases can and do result in death and disability not including whatever mental trauma. Better the people that the state that employs law enforcement bear the cost associated with their actions, then victims of civil rights violations are unable to collect against a bankrupt defendant.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      Any comment on the "In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal" aspect?
    - grecy 7y ago
      And better yet would be your right to assemble actually being worth a damn, and you never being arrested for doing something that is supposedly legal. You're so caught up in the whole charade of "Money = Life" you don't even realize there should never have been an arrest or a legal battle in the first place, if the American people really do have a right to assemble. Now if they don't, your discussion is valid I suppose.
      - 7y ago
- acollins1331 7y ago
  Yeah well the fact that the police officer doesn't have to pay for their version of malpractice is stupid as hell.
- wcunning 7y ago
  Except that under the doctrine of qualified immunity that case would be thrown out for an infinite number of tiny reasons. Check out the Institute for Justice for a good run down based on cases they've fought.

unlinked_dll 7y ago

the point of protest is to disrupt however. Limiting the ability of a peaceful assembly to be disruptive effectively neuters that assembly.

hirundo 7y ago
What would be an example of limiting a peaceful assembly in a way that neuters it? Would you consider blocking a road to be peaceful? I wouldn't. If it were only about limiting a disruptive message, I'd agree, but it's not clear that's what you mean.
- harimau777 7y ago
  What about Occupy Wall Street? In order to be successful they needed to put continuous pressure on the financial district. Authorities forced them to disband by closing the park at night. Since protests (and social movements in general) rely on momentum, this effectively neutered the protest.
  - hirundo 7y ago
    There were a lot of reports of health issues in Zuccotti Park, e.g. "like an open sewer—with people urinating and defecating in public." At some point that becomes a hazard to people beyond the protesters. Mitigating that hazard by banning overnight camping, so that it can be cleaned, does not seem oppressive if enforced in a content neutral way. It's hard to see how the city can do that job well while tents are pitched all over.
    - harimau777 7y ago
      The problem is that makes it difficult bordering on impossible to have a successful protest. As I understand it, protests work by putting stress on a system in order to force change. In cases where the protest overt actions such as police brutality or discrimination, it may only be necessary to provoke a response and then rely on the injustice of the response to apply pressure. E.g. when black people in the Civil Rights movement insisted on their rights and were met with violence it made it impossible for society to ignore the injustice of the system. However, when trying to change policy or overall behavior it is often necessary to apply pressure by outlasting the other side. An example would be striking workers trying to outlast management. Since protests, and social movements in general, rely on momentum, and constant pressure, kicking protesters out even temporarily undermines the ability to successfully protest. is over a specific unjust action it may only be necessary to provoke a It seems to me that for issues such as police brutality, discrimination, or unjust laws it's possible to have successful protests that are relatively short term. That is because the strategy is to purposefully to provoke a response that society won't tolerate (e.g. during the Civil Rights movement where black people would insist on their rights knowing that they would result in violence and thereby demonstrate the injustice of the system). However, it seems to me that movements that o

jancsika 7y ago

The problem with such generic reminders is that they could easily affect the flow of conversation by being automatically plastered asymmetrically across any forum or social media network at very low cost. For a small amount of money I could essentially pick at random five amendments out of the bill of rights and concern troll them on social media forums while ignoring the others. There's no alarm bell that goes off when someone does that. To counter this you could make at least one concrete link between your list of potential concerns to the OP's comment about Occupy.

Kalium 7y ago
You're right! I could definitely have been more specific. The article cited in the comment I responded to claimed that a person characterized as arrested for political views was arrested for blocking a public right-of-way. The primary reason I did not list this above is because it functions as an open invitation to endlessly debate if the public right-of-way was blocked or not, how relevant or legal related laws are, and so on. That would have been, in my opinion, not a useful, interesting, or substantive discussion. Almost every party involved would have attended having already decided what was true and ready to argue it forever. So I skipped it in favor of a more subtle point - restrictions are both allowed and accepted.

harimau777 7y ago

I agree with you that all rights have some sort of limitation. However, I think a fair question would be wether it is possible to meaningfully cause change while operating within the limitations that are currently placed on freedom of assembly.

gdhbcc 7y ago

If it can be subject to restrictions then it is simply not a fundamental right, it is merely a privilege.