Quote:
Originally Posted by spicoli
you'd have to ask them where they bought/got their gear.
the point of this whole thread is, if i'm not mistaken, not what the message is, but it's about the messenger having to right to deliver said message. it really is of NO CONSEQUENCE what the protested issue is, it is a basic civil liberty to speak out and speak up. whether or not the protesters are hypocrites of their cause and wasting their own time is not of my concern. when they are attacked for doing so, i get worried. our freedom as a whole is my concern, and i see it being slowly and methodically stripped away. next they're wanting our guns, those of us that still excersise that right. if they take those away, that's our last physical defense. that's when police state will have new meaning for us.
how is it that we are 'free' if we have to ask 'if' we can protest anything? because, as you know, those permits can be and are often denied.
asking for a permit to protest oppression is kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you say?
the more we limit what people can say, and where they can say it, the more freedom we lose as a society.
the politically correct movement really fucked things up, imo.
this here 'freedom' is costing us dearly.
|
the most coherant "opposing" view to mine posted yet. Thank you Spicoli.
a couple of quick replies:
"you" don't have to ask if you can protest anything. You can go right now. organizing a mass protest that prevents the use of public land or leads to a disturbance of the peace, however, requires a permit.
Permits are denied sometimes...and I speak from a non-first-person perspective here, but most of these seem to be either 1) too much of a disturbance (say, 100,000 people wanting to march down Broadway during a business day), or 2) a safety concern (say, 1,000 people wanting to stand outside the U.N. to protest something).
there are no limits to what you can say. There are no limits to where you can say it. There ARE limits on where CROWDS can say something.
lastly, using the G-20 as the primary example is, in a lot of ways, flawed. Was the police response in Pittsburgh over-the-top? Perhaps. But when you look back to Seattle and recognize the pattern of violence that follows the G-(whatever #) summits, I don't blame them.
If the protests were peaceful in the past, I HIGHLY doubt the city would have responded as they did...it's financially burdensome, and leads to viral videos like the OP. (this is a bit unfair, as we have no way of knowing since this reality does not exist, but I think the police response to other mass protests without a history of extreme violence and disturbance supports my claim).
Cause and effect, imho. Anarchists and rioters follow these summits...and the police's job is to protect people and property...people breaking the law (un-approved protests, blocking street traffic, etc) are easy targets to dispurse within their jurisdiction. Unfortunately, I think it's hard to distinguish a rioter from a "peacemonger" until it's too late. So they stop it all.
Again, I'd be more pissed off at those who spoil the pot for those wishing to protest peacefully (with or without a permit for that matter).
I'm also curious as to what new information has been presented to you to warrant your "slowly and methodically" statement. No new laws were passed that I'm aware of...nothing has changed. What new infingement has been put into place?
I do respect your ability to concisely and compellingly state your opinion(s). Thank you for that. Perhaps your response might change my mind on an issue or two (and vice versa).