Did they have a permit to protest on a public road? Freedom of assembly comes with some perfectly rational stipulations.
What a deranged question
Freedoms and rights do need to have rules and regulations. Otherwise you would have nonstop hate speech and death threats protected by freedom of speech or protesting at hospitals and blocking ambulances like during COVID.
One may well ask, “How can you
advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
~MLK, Letter from Birmingham
So uh... Have you seen a planned parenthood clinic in the last 20 years? They have escorts for a reason.
So would you agree there should be rules about protestors blocking access to planned parenthood? Or is it perfectly fine the way the system is right now, just allowing them to threaten and harass everyone going inside for unhindered rights or assembly?
Oh so now the road protestors are threatening and harassing the people in the cars instead of just telling signs at them and holding signs?
Lmao.
Literally no one said that. I fully support anyone wishing to protest against Israel's treatment of Palestine and the hypocritical enabling of the democrats. The issue being discussed is whether or not certain rights and freedoms should have rules attached to it.
Blocking a bridge, people say there should not be rules against it because they need to be a disruption to be heard properly. Some people say certain rules preventing the right of assembly should be allowed in certain cases, like blocking hospital access or creating buffer zones around schools and abortion clinics.
Some people say there shouldn't be any rules at all preventing any rights from being expressed.
I'm of the opinion that blocking traffic shouldn't be allowed for protesting peacefully. Line the edges and walkways of the bridge and be as visible as you want with large vibrant signs and megaphones, but don't stand in the street preventing people from getting to work.
Others disagree and simply say that it's a right to do it, but then they are fine with attaching certain rules to other rights like preventing hate speech. It's simply a matter of trying to find where the line should be drawn.
You said it. This entire thing is in the context of protestors blocking the road. Either that or you're trying to deflect rather than deal with the actual issue.
Emergency vehicles just drive up the other side of the road.
And no. Your daily commute just isn't that important. Protests that don't get seen don't mean anything. Pushing people out of sight for your convenience effectively destroys the first amendment.
Please try to develop some reading comprehension.
In the context of
So would you agree there should be rules about protestors blocking access to planned parenthood? Or is it perfectly fine the way the system is right now, just allowing them to threaten and harass everyone going inside for unhindered rights or assembly?
It was in direct reply to your comment about planned parenting protestors.
In none of my comments am I bashing the bridge protestors other than saying they should not be allowed to block traffic, and the right of assembly should have rules and regulations to determine "proper" and "improper" forms of protest.
I don't even know what you are arguing about.
That the second you make proper and improper forms of peaceful protest you've abrogated the first amendment and made violence inevitable. Peaceful protest is the bedrock of all our rights. The people in power already routinely try to neutralize it so they can control the narrative. There's no reason to make it easier for them. We cried foul when the Bush administration trundled the protestors off to free speech zones for security concerns. The convenience of some car drivers doesn't even begin to rate.
I sometimes wonder how people feel about the long game here.. Iran and its proxies obviously want to continue to attack Israel. Do these protestors expect Israel to just allow thousands more rockets to try and land in civilian territory? Do any of these people actually believe that is a realistic view of the world?
Iran Israel and its proxies obviously want to continue to attack Israel Iran and Palestine.
FTFY
Iran responded to Israel bombing its embassy. And now Iran has said it's concluded unless Israel wants to escalate.
In what universe is that continuing to attack Israel?
By Iran funding their Hezbollah proxies to continue the attacks (that just caused injury and serious injury to multiple people in Israel)? Seems like a continuation of the assault on civilian territory from an outside perspective.
Hezbollah doesn't need any encouragement from Iran. Not while Israel is still occupying Lebanese territory.
Israel continually commits acts of war against others and gets all the excuses in the world but when anyone attacks Israel in response it's all terrorism and evil.
An objective look at their history would show anyone this. They repeatedly make a big show of accepting peace while continuing to commit acts of war. Then when they inevitably get attacked they play the victim.
I'm sorry I didn't see the word permit in the first amendment. I'm getting old enough to need glasses. Maybe I should try with them?
...
Nope, still no such requirement.
That's like arguing exceptions for hate speech shouldn't exist since it's not in the first amendment.
The US doesn't have exceptions for hate speech. Unless you actively commit a crime while shouting it.
Didn't see anything about age requirements in the second but it's illegal to sell a gun to a kid. Crazy how things work.
Historically kids have never been afforded Constitutional rights. Which is kind of crazy. Almost as crazy as making the idea of kids owning guns equivalent to the bedrock right of a Democracy.
Just trying to show that there's more to the rights in the Bill of Rights than just the text of the Bill of Rights.
To make it illegal to fight for lives vs. Fighting for right to own a gun are not the same. I guess nuance is not your forte?
Did they have a permit to protest on a public road? Freedom of assembly comes with some perfectly rational stipulations.
What a deranged question
Freedoms and rights do need to have rules and regulations. Otherwise you would have nonstop hate speech and death threats protected by freedom of speech or protesting at hospitals and blocking ambulances like during COVID.
So uh... Have you seen a planned parenthood clinic in the last 20 years? They have escorts for a reason.
So would you agree there should be rules about protestors blocking access to planned parenthood? Or is it perfectly fine the way the system is right now, just allowing them to threaten and harass everyone going inside for unhindered rights or assembly?
Oh so now the road protestors are threatening and harassing the people in the cars instead of just telling signs at them and holding signs?
Lmao.
Literally no one said that. I fully support anyone wishing to protest against Israel's treatment of Palestine and the hypocritical enabling of the democrats. The issue being discussed is whether or not certain rights and freedoms should have rules attached to it.
Blocking a bridge, people say there should not be rules against it because they need to be a disruption to be heard properly. Some people say certain rules preventing the right of assembly should be allowed in certain cases, like blocking hospital access or creating buffer zones around schools and abortion clinics.
Some people say there shouldn't be any rules at all preventing any rights from being expressed.
I'm of the opinion that blocking traffic shouldn't be allowed for protesting peacefully. Line the edges and walkways of the bridge and be as visible as you want with large vibrant signs and megaphones, but don't stand in the street preventing people from getting to work.
Others disagree and simply say that it's a right to do it, but then they are fine with attaching certain rules to other rights like preventing hate speech. It's simply a matter of trying to find where the line should be drawn.
You said it. This entire thing is in the context of protestors blocking the road. Either that or you're trying to deflect rather than deal with the actual issue.
Emergency vehicles just drive up the other side of the road.
And no. Your daily commute just isn't that important. Protests that don't get seen don't mean anything. Pushing people out of sight for your convenience effectively destroys the first amendment.
Please try to develop some reading comprehension.
In the context of
It was in direct reply to your comment about planned parenting protestors.
In none of my comments am I bashing the bridge protestors other than saying they should not be allowed to block traffic, and the right of assembly should have rules and regulations to determine "proper" and "improper" forms of protest.
I don't even know what you are arguing about.
That the second you make proper and improper forms of peaceful protest you've abrogated the first amendment and made violence inevitable. Peaceful protest is the bedrock of all our rights. The people in power already routinely try to neutralize it so they can control the narrative. There's no reason to make it easier for them. We cried foul when the Bush administration trundled the protestors off to free speech zones for security concerns. The convenience of some car drivers doesn't even begin to rate.
I sometimes wonder how people feel about the long game here.. Iran and its proxies obviously want to continue to attack Israel. Do these protestors expect Israel to just allow thousands more rockets to try and land in civilian territory? Do any of these people actually believe that is a realistic view of the world?
FTFY
Iran responded to Israel bombing its embassy. And now Iran has said it's concluded unless Israel wants to escalate.
In what universe is that continuing to attack Israel?
By Iran funding their Hezbollah proxies to continue the attacks (that just caused injury and serious injury to multiple people in Israel)? Seems like a continuation of the assault on civilian territory from an outside perspective.
Hezbollah doesn't need any encouragement from Iran. Not while Israel is still occupying Lebanese territory.
Israel continually commits acts of war against others and gets all the excuses in the world but when anyone attacks Israel in response it's all terrorism and evil.
An objective look at their history would show anyone this. They repeatedly make a big show of accepting peace while continuing to commit acts of war. Then when they inevitably get attacked they play the victim.
I'm sorry I didn't see the word permit in the first amendment. I'm getting old enough to need glasses. Maybe I should try with them?
...
Nope, still no such requirement.
That's like arguing exceptions for hate speech shouldn't exist since it's not in the first amendment.
The US doesn't have exceptions for hate speech. Unless you actively commit a crime while shouting it.
Didn't see anything about age requirements in the second but it's illegal to sell a gun to a kid. Crazy how things work.
Historically kids have never been afforded Constitutional rights. Which is kind of crazy. Almost as crazy as making the idea of kids owning guns equivalent to the bedrock right of a Democracy.
Just trying to show that there's more to the rights in the Bill of Rights than just the text of the Bill of Rights.
To make it illegal to fight for lives vs. Fighting for right to own a gun are not the same. I guess nuance is not your forte?