Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Does protective public services have an obligation to intervene when the behavior of citizens is disruptive or unsafe?
|
Isn't that what protesting is all about? Being disruptive to get your fricking message to the politicians? It was that way in boston all those years ago.
-----Added 4/9/2008 at 01 : 38 : 08-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
That's really not the issue. All of the protests I've ever been involved in have occurred on public property; a closed off street, a sidewalk. Such is the case at the RNC. There is plenty of sidewalk between the free speech zone and the entrance that they should be able to protest on, but can't because the First Amendment has been replaced with heightened security.
|
All the Amendments have been replaced with heightened security. FTFY
-----Added 4/9/2008 at 01 : 40 : 09-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
but what ace outlines is the way in which this question has been stood on its head in recent times, thanks again to conservative ideology. this because, you see, private property is more important in at least some areas of conservativeland than is the legal apparatus which enables it, than is the consent of a polity implied by it. private property trumps the right to protest every time. this is the central rationale for the creation of these farcical "free speech zones"----and for the "whaddya talking about" from conservatives when it's problematic character is raised.
|
When this country was founded, private property rights were probably one of the highest priorities. Did that change?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Last edited by dksuddeth; 09-04-2008 at 09:40 AM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|