Occupy Wall Street

[maxpowr9]

Boston police are a bit wonky. It depends how many beers/"beverages" they had on-the-job before actually 'working'.

I'll never forget when one of my female friends hit on a 'hot' cop. She had been thrown out of the club for being too obscene and a cop showed up. While we were outside talking to the cop (we were all sober enough to say we would take home safely) she said to him "beat my clit with your baton". We just fled the scene at that point with her. Nothing like a drunk girl hitting on a cop.

 

[White Eagle]

I don't think I've ever heard of the word wonky. I spent a month up there while in the Navy, so didn't talk to too many people.

 

[andysayshi]

wonky |ˈwäNGkē|
adjective ( wonkier , wonkiest ) informal
crooked; off-center; askew: you have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth.
• (of a thing) unsteady; shaky: they sat drinking, perched on the wonky stools.
• not functioning correctly; faulty: your sense of judgment is a bit wonky at the moment.
DERIVATIVES
wonkily |ˈwäNGkəlē|adverb,
wonkiness noun
ORIGIN early 20th cent.: fanciful formation.

 

[IokuA47]

NOT if it is in violation of the law. (like, say, a law that makes it illegal to camp overnight in the park they were arrested in) Get your head straight. They have the right to protest, but they will get arrested if said protest violates the law.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

So, now you're saying there is a law in the books that goes against the first amendment? great, you're finally catching onto the corruption in our government that we are standing against!

 

[Kulindahr]

You miss the point of OWS entirely, Jack. Elections aren't working. We voted in a majority of Democrats, but all of the policy is being determined by a minority of Republicans. We want someone to represent us.

We want our democracy back.

I've wanted someone to represent me for twenty-five years -- the system doesn't allow it. The people who can donate the maximum in every election get represented, and not the rest, unless they're ardent fans of what pass for party platforms there days.

.. another thing, if you're in jail - you can't tweet. So much fake shit with these people.

Don't know much about jail, do you? I got a text message from someone in jail once. It's simple: when a bunch of people are brought in at once, they go into a holding area where they wait until officers take them one by one for processing.

The facts of that elude you. The protestors were warned not to go on that part of the park, because the conservancy group that takes care of it just planted $150,000 worth of new plants.

So because protesters were in the area where there were roses, it's okay for the cops to throw veterans to the ground and trample the flag?

In my book, any cop who tramples the flag should be fired and blacklisted across the country.

They were asked to leave an area to avoid costly damage, and did not do so, so they were arrested. People do not have the right to protest or assemble in violation of the law without facing the repercussions, which is why they were arrested.

You just tossed the Constitution out the window.

 

[Kulindahr]

NOT if it is in violation of the law. (like, say, a law that makes it illegal to camp overnight in the park they were arrested in) Get your head straight. They have the right to protest, but they will get arrested if said protest violates the law.

No. It is against the law for them to camp overnight in the park, which is what they were doing. THAT is why they were arrested. The plants were the reason why they initially asked them not to move into the greenway. Drop the hyperbole, it doesn't help your weak argument.

So it would be perfectly all right for the government to designate where and when free speech can take place?

Get your head straight: they have the right to peaceably assemble -- period. If freedom of speech and press include pornography and lies, then freedom to assemble is just as wide and absolute.

The law is wrong. And as many have written, there is no obligation for a free person to obey a law that's wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

On which it is illegal to camp over night, which is what the protesters did. [STRIKE]Public land[/STRIKE] Constitutional right or not, if they violate a law, they're getting arrested.

There's what you're really arguing, whether you mean to or not.

 

[CFoTsD]

Get your head straight: they have the right to peaceably assemble -- period.

Not just "period". See Hague v. CIO

 

[JB3]

You just tossed the Constitution out the window.

No Kulindahr, I haven't.

 

[JB3]

So it would be perfectly all right for the government to designate where and when free speech can take place?

Get your head straight: they have the right to peaceably assemble -- period. If freedom of speech and press include pornography and lies, then freedom to assemble is just as wide and absolute.

The law is wrong. And as many have written, there is no obligation for a free person to obey a law that's wrong.

No, the law is not wrong. The law dealt specifically with camping out in a public park. There are thousands of laws across the US that are like this. These people violated it, and they got arrested for it. The right to peacefully assemble does NOT exempt you from being arrested for violating another law in the process. The concept is not as hard as you're making it out to be. Its the same concept that applies to protesting in the US Senate office building, the national air and space museum, or in any government buildings across the land.

 

[CFoTsD]

No Kulindahr, I haven't.

To follow Kulindahr 'logic' anti abortionists could peacefully & nonviolently assemble to block all entrances to abortion clinics and the police should do nothing.

 

[opinterph]

See Hague v. CIO

Please explain the relevance of the cite.

 

[Kulindahr]

No Kulindahr, I haven't.

Okay, you've just supported the position that any government at any level can make any law they wish restricting the exercise or limiting the extent of any protected right.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, the law is not wrong. The law dealt specifically with camping out in a public park. There are thousands of laws across the US that are like this. These people violated it, and they got arrested for it. The right to peacefully assemble does NOT exempt you from being arrested for violating another law in the process. The concept is not as hard as you're making it out to be. Its the same concept that applies to protesting in the US Senate office building, the national air and space museum, or in any government buildings across the land.

So the government can, in your view, limit free speech in any places it might choose, or limit any other right in the same way, by penalizing its exercise with a law purporting to do something else.

 

[Kulindahr]

To follow Kulindahr 'logic' anti abortionists could peacefully & nonviolently assemble to block all entrances to abortion clinics and the police should do nothing.

Fail.

And you obviously can't figure out why, or you wouldn't have said this.

 

[CFoTsD]

Fail.

Hardly. You should revisit your comments in the Brooklyn Bridge thread

 

[JB3]

So the government can, in your view, limit free speech in any places it might choose, or limit any other right in the same way, by penalizing its exercise with a law purporting to do something else.

When was their free speech limited? They were never stopped from saying anything. As a matter of fact, they were told very specifically that they could say whatever they wanted. What they were told, however, was to move the camped out protesters out of the park. Its a difference that you can't seem to grasp.

 

[JB3]

Okay, you've just supported the position that any government at any level can make any law they wish restricting the exercise or limiting the extent of any protected right.

Nonsense. Use your head Kuli.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hardly. You should revisit your comments in the Brooklyn Bridge thread

Yep -- you didn't understand.

When was their free speech limited? They were never stopped from saying anything. As a matter of fact, they were told very specifically that they could say whatever they wanted. What they were told, however, was to move the camped out protesters out of the park. Its a difference that you can't seem to grasp.

You're totally approving of some local law restricting their right of peaceful assembly. It follows that you'd support any local law restricting their right of free speech -- or of the press, of anything else.

The freedom of the press has come to be sacrosanct. Every other right we have should be defended just as vigorously and extremely. But the courts have whittled away at our rights until some of them are meaningless -- and you're supporting that trend.

It's a trend toward tyranny.

 

[hotatlboi]

You're totally approving of some local law restricting their right of peaceful assembly. It follows that you'd support any local law restricting their right of free speech -- or of the press, of anything else.

The freedom of the press has come to be sacrosanct. Every other right we have should be defended just as vigorously and extremely. But the courts have whittled away at our rights until some of them are meaningless -- and you're supporting that trend.

It's a trend toward tyranny.

I'm not sure how a local ordinance regarding sleeping in a public park amounts to tyranny. I imagine a lot of public parks have those kind of rules.

No one is restricting their right to assemble there if they want, just to live there. There is no "freedom of habitation" granting you the right to bed anywhere you want in the Constitution.