FB friend R.W. posted this:
So I'm listening to Komo news say that none of the protestors in Down town Seattle have Permits to march, block traffic, set fires, vandalize, intimidate, or attack the police, and then COMMEND the police for not interfering with their RIGHT to protest! I'm sorry, isn't that right granted by the PERMIT?!
Me: Actually, requiring permits interferes with rights.
R.W.: I see that point, but I also don't think they have the right to impede others. A permit should keep them in certain areas, out of the middle of the street, and allow law enforcement to keep everyone safe. You have the right to protest, but not in front of my car. Or ON my car. If you can require a permit to have a parade, then I see no problem with requiring one to protest. Or maybe I should say, you don't need a permit to protest, but you need permit to limit when and WHERE you can protest.
Me: Agreed. However, like almost every government attempt at "regulating" rights, it doesn't take long for excess to show up. Free speech zones, set back distances for abortion clinics, banning free speech from certain places. "Congress shall make no law" seems pretty clear to me.
R.W.: blocking a street used by first responders is equal to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. If your protest endangers public safety, the courts have found it not to be protected speech. A parade must have a ROUTE and not be during high volume traffic times. There is nothing about these anarchist protests that resemble "Peaceful assembly". You have the right to free speech but not ANYWHERE or anytime you like. Try marching onto a military base to protest their nukes, see how far you get. I agree that it can be abused like so many of our rights routinely are. I am NOT in favor of banning free speech on college campuses or schools or anyplace like that. Just not in the street where the safety of the protestors are at risk. And they should never block entrances to business or even abortion clinics. Remember one groups rights should never interfere with another's.
Me: Once again, agreed. You are talking about things that are not rights. I am talking abut government interfering with rights. The larger danger is government interference.
R.W.: then maybe we are saying the same thing. My grievance is not with protesting, it is with the interference of those of us NOT protesting. I think the government has the right to protect the non-protestors, and to set certain limits on the who, when and where, but they have no authority to stop the protest outright.
So I'm listening to Komo news say that none of the protestors in Down town Seattle have Permits to march, block traffic, set fires, vandalize, intimidate, or attack the police, and then COMMEND the police for not interfering with their RIGHT to protest! I'm sorry, isn't that right granted by the PERMIT?!
Me: Actually, requiring permits interferes with rights.
R.W.: I see that point, but I also don't think they have the right to impede others. A permit should keep them in certain areas, out of the middle of the street, and allow law enforcement to keep everyone safe. You have the right to protest, but not in front of my car. Or ON my car. If you can require a permit to have a parade, then I see no problem with requiring one to protest. Or maybe I should say, you don't need a permit to protest, but you need permit to limit when and WHERE you can protest.
Me: Agreed. However, like almost every government attempt at "regulating" rights, it doesn't take long for excess to show up. Free speech zones, set back distances for abortion clinics, banning free speech from certain places. "Congress shall make no law" seems pretty clear to me.
R.W.: blocking a street used by first responders is equal to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. If your protest endangers public safety, the courts have found it not to be protected speech. A parade must have a ROUTE and not be during high volume traffic times. There is nothing about these anarchist protests that resemble "Peaceful assembly". You have the right to free speech but not ANYWHERE or anytime you like. Try marching onto a military base to protest their nukes, see how far you get. I agree that it can be abused like so many of our rights routinely are. I am NOT in favor of banning free speech on college campuses or schools or anyplace like that. Just not in the street where the safety of the protestors are at risk. And they should never block entrances to business or even abortion clinics. Remember one groups rights should never interfere with another's.
Me: Once again, agreed. You are talking about things that are not rights. I am talking abut government interfering with rights. The larger danger is government interference.
R.W.: then maybe we are saying the same thing. My grievance is not with protesting, it is with the interference of those of us NOT protesting. I think the government has the right to protect the non-protestors, and to set certain limits on the who, when and where, but they have no authority to stop the protest outright.
No comments:
Post a Comment