• G20 protest videos
    275 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lankist;17539576]I find this hilariously ironic. Permits are city-specific legislation. They don't override First Amendment rights. [editline]06:21PM[/editline] But it's cute how you're pretending you understand any of this. [editline]06:21PM[/editline] By cute I mean disgusting in your man-child degree of intellect. [editline]06:23PM[/editline] In fact as I referenced earlier ([url]http://www.pittnews.com/node/19961[/url]) Code Pink SUED Pittsburgh and had a federal judge force the city to allow their protest. [editline]06:24PM[/editline] Let me sum that up for you: The city denied their request for a permit, the group sued the entire city, WON, and then a federal judge forced the city to allow their protest. So much for you being the smart one. [editline]06:24PM[/editline] And it's cute how you rate dumb as though it means you aren't fucking wrong as wrong can possibly be.[/QUOTE] Lawyer, I wub you
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541185]They're exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble. [editline]07:48PM[/editline] They don't need to justify it.[/QUOTE] Bullshit. Your suing case you brought up did not involve any of the anarchists, communists, students or random non-organized people who joined throughout the day Friday. And yes, laws do override the constitution. I can't yell fire in a crowded room, slander or otherwise even though I have the freedom of speech. Again, things not covered in the constitution but covered in laws still override it, they still exist. The constitution are the base rules. These people have the freedom to assemble peacefully, which many of them were not peaceful, but they must get a permit beforehand.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541357]Bullshit. Your suing case you brought up did not involve any of the anarchists, communists, students or random non-organized people who joined throughout the day Friday. And yes, laws do override the constitution. I can't yell fire in a crowded room, slander or otherwise even though I have the freedom of speech. Again, things not covered in the constitution but covered in laws still override it, they still exist. The constitution are the base rules. These people have the freedom to assemble peacefully, which many of them were not peaceful, but they must get a permit beforehand.[/QUOTE] Uhh, local laws do NOT override the Constitution. The only people who can change the INTERPRETATION are members of the Supreme Court. NOT city officials. [editline]07:58PM[/editline] And, yet again, as demonstrated by the SIX LAWSUITS that won against the city of Pittsburgh, permits do NOT override the First Amendment. [editline]07:59PM[/editline] But W2G for not understanding basic constitutional law. Local government cannot override federal.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541285]Uhh, the actions of an individual do not warrant the abuse of the whole. One guy gets violent. One guy gets arrested. Ten guys get violent, ten guys get arrested. You don't try to abridge the speech of the peaceful under the pretense that it is for safety.[/QUOTE] In a group of over 4.5 thousand people you don't have time to discern which ones are attacking you and damaging property, or to locate all the people causing damage, since, y'know, they aren't in one place or under police watch the full time, which they would be if they had a permit. The situation was out of control, it's there job to get it under control before some serious shit happens.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541285]Uhh, [b]the actions of an individual[/b] do not warrant the abuse of the whole.[/QUOTE] This just wasn't one hillbilly throwing rocks at stuff. It was a whole ton of 'em. Read the article. Seriously, it's not like police can count one by one how many people are being violent. In this situation, they had to disperse the group as a whole. Since the group refused, they had to enforce the law. /discussion
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541412]In a group of over 4.5 thousand people you don't have time to discern which ones are attacking you and damaging property, or to locate all the people causing damage, since, y'know, they aren't in one place or under police watch the full time, which they would be if they had a permit. The situation was out of control, it's there job to get it under control before some serious shit happens.[/QUOTE] That's a sad story. Still not an excuse to violate the First Amendment. [editline]07:59PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Archy;17541430]This just wasn't one hillbilly throwing rocks at stuff. It was a whole ton of 'em. Read the article.[/QUOTE] Then they arrest the whole ton of them and leave the rest alone. [editline]08:00PM[/editline] 4.5 thousand people did not assault the cops. 4.5 thousand people cannot have their rights trampled for safety.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541380]Uhh, local laws do NOT override the Constitution. The only people who can change the INTERPRETATION are members of the Supreme Court. NOT city officials. [editline]07:58PM[/editline] And, yet again, as demonstrated by the SIX LAWSUITS that won against the city of Pittsburgh, permits do NOT override the First Amendment. [editline]07:59PM[/editline] But W2G for not understanding basic constitutional law. Local government cannot override federal.[/QUOTE] No, but as I've said before, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS- YOU MUST HAVE A PERMIT. As I also said, NONE OF THOSE GROUPS SEEMED TO BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE RIOTS, AND WERE THEREFORE LIKELY NOT IN THE SCUFFLE HAD THEY BEEN WITHIN THEIR DESIGNATED PROTESTING ZONE. Caps for emphasis. [editline]12:02AM[/editline] And I'd like to see a case where I go into a movie theater, shout "Fire!" and watch everyone scream, panic, and trample over others, and win because I have the freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541444]No, but as I've said before, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS- YOU MUST HAVE A PERMIT. As I also said, NONE OF THOSE GROUPS SEEMED TO BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE RIOTS, AND WERE THEREFORE LIKELY NOT IN THE SCUFFLE HAD THEY BEEN WITHIN THEIR DESIGNATED PROTESTING ZONE.[/QUOTE] No, as I've said before: [url]http://www.pittnews.com/node/19961[/url] PERMITS ARE NOT TECHNICALLY LEGAL. THEY DO NOT OVERRIDE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. A FEDERAL JUDGE OVERRODE THE PERMIT SYSTEM AND GAVE SIX GROUPS THE ABILITY TO PROTEST REGARDLESS OF A LACK OF PERMIT. PLEASE LEARN TO READ
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541444]And I'd like to see a case where I go into a movie theater, shout "Fire!" and watch everyone scream, panic, and trample over others, and win because I have the freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] That was a case ruled by the SUPREME COURT. Permits are LOCAL LEGISLATION. They are not recognized by the federal government. They cannot obstruct free speech. [editline]08:02PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Retardation;17541505]I was talking to the protesters.[/QUOTE] So was I. [editline]08:05PM[/editline] Let me spell this out for you. The SUPREME COURT, who INTERPRETS the Constitution, decided that the First Amendment was not intended to protect false speech as in the "FIRE!" argument. LOCAL, CITY GOVERNMENT does not have that same power.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541493]No, as I've said before: [url]http://www.pittnews.com/node/19961[/url] PERMITS ARE NOT TECHNICALLY LEGAL. THEY DO NOT OVERRIDE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. A FEDERAL JUDGE OVERRODE THE PERMIT SYSTEM AND GAVE SIX GROUPS THE ABILITY TO PROTEST REGARDLESS OF A LACK OF PERMIT. PLEASE LEARN TO READ[/QUOTE] A judge overrode the system, yes, BUT THE GROUPS INVOLVED INT HE SCUFFLES WERE NOT ANY OF THOSE SIX GROUPS, HAD NOT FILED FOR A PERMIT, HAD NOT TAKEN IT UP WITH THE JUDGE, AND WERE CAUSING DAMAGE, BEING VIOLENT, COST THE CITY 45,000$ IN DAMAGES, AND WERE ASSAULTING POLICE. I don't give a shit about what overrides what, the fact is that they were not peacefully assembling, they had no right to be there.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541493]No, as I've said before: [url]http://www.pittnews.com/node/19961[/url] PERMITS ARE NOT TECHNICALLY LEGAL. THEY DO NOT OVERRIDE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. A FEDERAL JUDGE OVERRODE THE PERMIT SYSTEM AND GAVE SIX GROUPS THE ABILITY TO PROTEST REGARDLESS OF A LACK OF PERMIT. PLEASE LEARN TO READ[/QUOTE] According to your article, he gave ONE group a permit.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541548]BUT THE GROUPS INVOLVED INT HE SCUFFLES WERE NOT ANY OF THOSE SIX GROUPS, HAD NOT FILED FOR A PERMIT, HAD NOT TAKEN IT UP WITH THE JUDGE, AND WERE CAUSING DAMAGE, BEING VIOLENT, COST THE CITY 45,000$ IN DAMAGES, AND WERE ASSAULTING POLICE.[/QUOTE] Source. Now. [editline]08:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Archy;17541561]He gave ONE group a permit.[/QUOTE] Code Pink was one of six groups to sue the city Each group got a different judge. Each group won. Initially the city denied ALL permits. They were forced later to disregard permits entirely.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541573]Source. Now. [editline]08:06PM[/editline] Code Pink was one of six groups to sue the city Each group got a different judge. Each group won.[/QUOTE] Show me your sources.
I'm pretty sure it was peaceful till the cops got there.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541548]I don't give a shit about what overrides what, the fact is that they were not peacefully assembling, they had no right to be there.[/QUOTE] No. 4.5 thousand people did not riot. There were a very small number that caused trouble. The vast majority were and are fully within their rights.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541573]Source. Now. [editline]08:06PM[/editline] Code Pink was one of six groups to sue the city Each group got a different judge. Each group won.[/QUOTE] Do you see any anarchist groups in that list there? The fact that the police responded to them is a big indicator they weren't supposed to be there, and as far as I knew, it's illegal to not give a permit if it's non violent and doesn't harm anyone or anything or block any roads, etc. Had they filed for a permit, then they should have got one. Had they not, then they should have brought it up with the court, as the other groups did. And since they didn't, they therefore did not have the right to be there.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541638]Do you see any anarchist groups in that list there?[/QUOTE] There isn't a list you illiterate nonce.
Perhaps this should be discussed over PMs, so we don't derail the thread.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541638]Had they filed for a permit, then they should have got one. Had they not, then they should have brought it up with the court, as the other groups did. And since they didn't, they therefore did not have the right to be there.[/QUOTE] They ALL applied for permits. The city denied ALL permits.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541573]Source. Now. [editline]08:06PM[/editline] Code Pink was one of six groups to sue the city Each group got a different judge. Each group won. Initially the city denied ALL permits. They were forced later to disregard permits entirely.[/QUOTE] You are totally destroying them and their petty arguments from the questionable morals their parents thought them or they are just filled with angst themselves.
[QUOTE=Archy;17541597]Show me your sources.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/us/12pittsburgh.html?_r=1[/url] Days before Code Pink's case and the disregard to permits entirely.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541615]No. 4.5 thousand people did not riot. There were a very small number that caused trouble. The vast majority were and are fully within their rights.[/QUOTE] Very small number? No, there were many groups within the whole that were doing it throughout the city. Then, when trying to disperse the permit-less assemblers, assault on police, resisting arrest, and property damage became even more common. Even if you're non violent, and you're near a violent group, if the police want you out of there, you get the fuck out because either you'll get int he way, are in harm's way, or could bee seen as part of the other group. [editline]12:12AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;17541665]They ALL applied for permits. The city denied ALL permits.[/QUOTE] Then they should have took it up with the court. I believe you have that right and are expected to take something up with the courts if you believe you are being unfairly treated.
[QUOTE=Archy;17541269][b]PEACEFULLY assemble.[/b] [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_re_us/g20_summit_protests[/url] Because breaking property is SO peaceful.[/QUOTE] That's like saying saying all Anarchists are violent.
[QUOTE=Kamikaze;17541710]That's like saying saying all Anarchists are violent.[/QUOTE] Most of them in these protests were. And they don't exactly have the best reputation since the Anarchist Cookbook...
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541690]Very small number? No, there were many groups within the whole that were doing it throughout the city. Then, when trying to disperse the permit-less assemblers, assault on police, resisting arrest, and property damage became even more common. Even if you're non violent, and you're near a violent group, if the police want you out of there, you get the fuck out because either you'll get int he way, are in harm's way, or could bee seen as part of the other group.[/quote] Source on your claims. Now. I am not going to acknowledge your claims of violence until you show me some numbers. [quote]Then they should have took it up with the court.[/QUOTE] They DID. The ACLU did and still is suing the entire city. [editline]08:14PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DPennington;17541726]Most of them in these protests were. And they don't exactly have the best reputation since the Anarchist Cookbook...[/QUOTE] Source. And do I need to bring up the CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual?
[QUOTE=Rankzerox;17530163]The teens are the kind who had parents who where cunts and didnt set limits.[/QUOTE] Hey... My dad or mom never set limits on me, and I don't feel like destroying a city/throwing shit at cops. Infact, it's mostly the opposite, to be rebellious. Only reason i would protest were if the internet were to be full of rules and laws which regulate content, OR that I can legally take the day off from school for "political reasons".
[QUOTE=DPennington;17541726]Most of them in these protests were. And they don't exactly have the best reputation since the Anarchist Cookbook...[/QUOTE] The Anarchist Cookbook was written in order to spread the message at what Anarchism is... and it's wrong. The Cookbook is nothing more than propaganda to give the ideology a bad name.
[QUOTE=Kamikaze;17541710]That's like saying saying all Anarchists are violent.[/QUOTE] Well, true that. Either way, I think the police did the right thing. Things turned violent, so they chose to disperse the groups. That's fine in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Kamikaze;17541768]The Anarchist Cookbook was written by a member of the FBI in order to spread the message at what Anarchism is... and it's wrong. The Cookbook is nothing more than propaganda to give the ideology a bad name.[/QUOTE] Uhh, it was written by William Powell. You are only hurting your argument.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17541806]Uhh, it was written by William Powell. You are only hurting your argument/writing.[/QUOTE] I was thinking of another argument. But, the Cookbook is used as propaganda to shun the ideology.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.