Yesh, except when they nightstick someone first, and then they are all rioters.
Was it you that told me about attending a protest in the Castro, and the cops told this girl not to step into the street. Then when the crowd pushed her so that one foot touched the gutter, he clubbed her with his stick?
[2 points]46 days ago by dauguyReplyEdited 46 days ago by dauguy
He broke her ankle, and the police fell on her and beat her. She sued successfully.
Any lawful protest in San Francisco was routinely met by riot police who would fall on any reason to "disperse" crowds, usually by means of violence. It was routinely misrepresented in the press.
It would take years for those hurt by police to take it through the courts to get compensation, and many didn't have the wherewithal to fight. And San Francisco is ORGANIZED politically! Can you imagine what it is like elsewhere?
No, and not paid speech either if the powers that be don't like what you have to say. More liberal views have been kept from the airways by networks refusing to sell them time. This country has always tried to suppress free speech--that is why Madison thought it so important to include in the Bill of Rights. Look into the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798, in part to muzzle newspapers. Yes, *seventeen* ninety-eight.
They have ways to get around it. It is a private affair and everybody is invited. If you give them cause to eject you, they have the right. It is and isn't a complicated rule. You almost need a high-speed lawyer to explain it to you.
I read an idea that someone proposed yesterday, as a way to protest the president, and keep from being removed in these situations. The suggestion is, instead of yelling and holding up banners, just to point at the president. Point at him, arm and index finger extended, nothing more than that. Say nothing, do nothing else. No signs, no provocative moves.
Just point at him. Everyone will know why you are pointing at him.
I like this, seems simple, nonthreatening. The SS shouldn't have a problem with it. And certainly gets the message across.
[3 points]46 days ago by waugsReplyEdited 46 days ago by waugs
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Loading...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/07/04/vo.bush.protesters.cnn
lol, they were probably on "private property" and/or had no permit to protest.
Right, 'cause you really should get permission from the government before you exercise your rights!
Eggs-actly.
And then probably one person acted out and threw something, so they were all "rioters". That is how it usually works.
Yesh, except when they nightstick someone first, and then they are all rioters.
Was it you that told me about attending a protest in the Castro, and the cops told this girl not to step into the street. Then when the crowd pushed her so that one foot touched the gutter, he clubbed her with his stick?
He broke her ankle, and the police fell on her and beat her. She sued successfully.
Any lawful protest in San Francisco was routinely met by riot police who would fall on any reason to "disperse" crowds, usually by means of violence. It was routinely misrepresented in the press.
It would take years for those hurt by police to take it through the courts to get compensation, and many didn't have the wherewithal to fight. And San Francisco is ORGANIZED politically! Can you imagine what it is like elsewhere?
No, the US doesn't have free speech, but I've known that for a while.
Thank you, 'Patriot Act'. How unpatriotic.
No, and not paid speech either if the powers that be don't like what you have to say. More liberal views have been kept from the airways by networks refusing to sell them time. This country has always tried to suppress free speech--that is why Madison thought it so important to include in the Bill of Rights. Look into the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798, in part to muzzle newspapers. Yes, *seventeen* ninety-eight.
They have ways to get around it. It is a private affair and everybody is invited. If you give them cause to eject you, they have the right. It is and isn't a complicated rule. You almost need a high-speed lawyer to explain it to you.
I read an idea that someone proposed yesterday, as a way to protest the president, and keep from being removed in these situations. The suggestion is, instead of yelling and holding up banners, just to point at the president. Point at him, arm and index finger extended, nothing more than that. Say nothing, do nothing else. No signs, no provocative moves.
Just point at him. Everyone will know why you are pointing at him.
I like this, seems simple, nonthreatening. The SS shouldn't have a problem with it. And certainly gets the message across.
Excellent idea!
And pointing will become a terrorist act before Congress recesses for dinner.