8/30 So do the protests in New York prove that Aschroft is preventing our
exercise of free speech?
\_ No, it proves that Americans aren't that willing to give up our
rights just because some demagogue tries to. AFAIK, all these
protests are illegal (without a permit).
protests are illegal (held without a permit).
\_ I find the very idea that you need a permit from the government
in order to protest the government a farcical abuse of the
constitution.
\_ where does it say it is ok for 100,000 people to show up and
stomp $8 million worth of grass and yell a lot?
\_ 100,000 people can show up because we have freedom of
assembly. They can yell a lot because they have freedom of
speach. And they can walk on the grass normally because
the city has to pay to maintain its parks.
\_ does "normal wear and tear" include willful destruction
of public property? Just because one does not go out
saying "I'm going to destroy the grass" doesn't make it
"not willful"
\_ You're wrong. Read up on 'intent'. -POC
\_ Once you've been informed that your actions will
lead to some form of destruction and you proceed,
you have intent.
\_ Sophistry, my friend. You're mixing up the
notion of personal accountability in an
inappropriate context. It's not the indiviuals
that can be held accountable unless they're
actually breaking the law; walking in the park
isn't illegal.
\_ 2 people stomping in the park having
been informed in advance they're going to do
$1.60 in damage is not merely walking in the
park. So if the individuals are not
accountable for the damage, then who is?
Just have the tax payers of NYC cover it?
\_ The damages belong to the people!
-- socialist
\_ Someone needs to figure out where
"$8m in damage" came from.
\_ Really? How do you figure? "Willful" usually
\_ See above. It's willful once you're no longer
ignorant of the consequences of your actions and
proceed to commit a destructive act anyway, even
if the destruction was not your primary motivation
for the act which caused the destruction of public
property.
implies intent.
\_ Actually, that's what willful means. It's when you
want to destroy something, and then you destroy it.
\_ Reread that tortured triple negative again.
\_ Does... not... parse... head... exploding...
\_ Don't not leave the motd unread because your head
might not un-implode.
\_ Wow you mean my free speech rights are worth only $80?
Although you have nothing worthwhile to say, some of us
think free speech is worth more than that.
\_ Free speech does not include the right to destroy the
park. Were all 100,000 coughing up $80 each to repair
the park afterwards? The city has an obligation to not
waste citizen dollars on stupid shit. There are plenty
of places to running around stupid without causing $8m
in damages.
\_ Someone needs to figure out where "$8m in damages"
came from.
\_ First Amendment.
\_ As if there are no limits to the 1st amendment? The
Supreme Court has already ruled there are. It is not
carte blanche to be an idiot.
\_ "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the
freedom of speech, [...] or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances."
The people were attempting to exercise our
Constitutionally protected rights on public
property in a peaceful way. This is just another
example of the idiots in charge taking away more
of our rights. Worse, is people like you
apologizing for them.
\_ "peaceably to assemble". Last I checked it didn't
cost the city $8m for a peaceful assembly. There
are plenty of other places. No one said they
can't gather. Just not that many in that one
spot at that one time. No one said they can't
block the fucking streets for hours at a time.
Just stay off the grass. What's so hard to
understand about that?
\_ you're being obtuse; if they showed up in
the financial district and blocked roads,
they'd get their heads busted in.
\_ You are trying to claim that walking in the
park is a violent activity??? You have
totally gone around the bend.
\_ Someone needs to figure out where "$8m for
a peaceful assembly" came from (I assume this
is "$8m" more than the site that was settled
upon).
\_ You all may wish to read up on the legal concept of "prior
restraint."
\_ You don't need a permit to protest. You *do* need a permit to
march down the middle of the street and not get arrested.
\_ What about the permit to protest in Central Park?
The grass has a right to life, too.
\_ Denying permits without just cause is abuse.
Permits are so police can block off traffic and have enough
people there in case people start trashing the city.
Are you a dumb liberal or a trolling freeper? -liberal
\_ "AFAIK, all these protests are illegal (held without a permit)".
Haven't you read the articles where they are arguing about using
Central Park, and the protestors finally switched to some other
place that was approved, and with an approved route?
\_ The bottom line is, the mayor of NYC is refusing the Central Park
permit because he is a Republican and a team-player.
\_ take a look at a map of manhattan. if the only goal was to
protect delegates from protesters, central park would be a
much better place to have them than snaking around through
midtown. If they were in central park, they could be ignored.
I think it really is about destroying the park.
\_ Denying them the park denies them the chance to show the media
a massive peaceful protest. By forcing them into the streets
you make the protest look smaller and increase the chance
that it turns violent, which would help the Republicans
politically.
\_ No, by jamming them into a park you hide them. By bringing
all life to a complete halt for the duration of the event,
you are showing the media your power. Why must the
opposition explain this to you? --conservative
\_ Take a second look. Is what I wrote the bottom line or not?
Do you think the Republicans would try to hold the GOP
Convention in NYC if the mayor were a Democrat?
\_ of course not, and yes, I think Bloomberg is probably
playing ball with the GOP on managing protesters overall.
Still, having a protest in central park seems kind of
pointless and expensive to me. Why not just rent out a
stadium and call the news media? I think that in this
case, Bloomberg is probably more concerned with the rich
people who live on central park west than with the GOP.
My millionaire great aunt who lived on central park west
was a Trotskyist, but she'd be super-pissed if the park
got trashed.
\_ Renting out a stadium is expensive too. Central park is
the premier public forum in the city.
\_ Take over the streets, fool! WTF? When did the left
forget how to do a real protest? --conservative |
http://csua.com/feed/