I was inconvenienced by protesters, again, tonight.

[oggbashan]

Article 42 of the Magna Carta does not say that the traveller will not be charged for the journey, only that he/she is able to undertake the journey.

Even then, travelling cost money (and taxes!).

 

[KingOrfeo]

I am not to fond of Congress getting together and passing laws, most of which I disagree with. How about if I get 535 of my closest friends to employ our constitutional right to freedom of assembly in the House and the Senate. Each time someone gets up to use the john we will "occupy" the seat.

Yes! Do it! Do it armed!

 

[phrodeau]

I suspect more than a few of the people in Congress are using diapers.

 

[Paendragon]

Maybe if enough motorists got out of their cars and beat the shit out of the assholes blocking traffic they would stop doing it. I would not recommend throwing them off the bridge though, unless it is the part that passes over land.

I doubt lawless behavior is the answer. The protesters were arrested and charged, and there was no direct violence. In every aspect, they were well-behaved. I just don't think the whole thing was well thought out from either a PR or public safety perspective.

I seriously doubt that many of the people participating understand the issues or have any sort of idea about what should actually be done. Make any one of them commissioner for the day, what would they change?

These were smart kids. It was a Stanford University protest. I believe they understood the issues, just not the implications of what they were doing.

 

[Paendragon]

Would you be happier if they shot some commuters or cops ,

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

 

[Paendragon]

The right to peaceably assemble is in the First Amendment, yes.

According to the constitution yes parade permits are bullshit. This like many other cases is why the Constitution is hundreds of years out of date and needs to be rewritten to fit with the modern world.

Any public place should be just fine and no where does it say it can't interfer with other people. We've kinda common sensed our way around the Constitution but we shouldn't.

This has always been a sticking point for me. Your rights don't supersede mine. You have the right to protest at an abortion clinic, but you don't have the right to physically bar me from entry. You can form a picket line in front of a company, but can not bar me from crossing it.

We forget that too often.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This has always been a sticking point for me. Your rights don't supersede mine. You have the right to protest at an abortion clinic, but you don't have the right to physically bar me from entry. You can form a picket line in front of a company, but can not bar me from crossing it.

We forget that too often.

If we're sticking to the letter of the law however you don't have a right to enter an abortion clinic, or any other establishment. But I do have a right to peacable assemble.

And in many cases the lines are kinda blurry, there aren't too many places that only one road goes to, it might be more convienent to take the freeway but there aren't a lot of places you can't get on city streets.

And a demonstration that isn't in the way isn't a demonstration that's going to accomplish anything.

 

[Paendragon]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. At all. I was agreeing with you 100%.

But yes, my free speech does include the right to shout down other people. I shouldn't but as written it does.

My peacably assmembling on a freeway doesn't prevent you from going to work unless there are millions of us. Get off the fucking freeway and take city streets.

So Constitutionally, yes to stopping traffic, yes to blockading abortion clinics.

Common sense however says no to either and we should put that in writing. Just like we should clear up that whole right to arms thing that we clearly don't buy. Honestly I'm not sure how much of it should be allowed to stand without at least looking it over.

You can't do that on a bridge. Especially when it's divided by direction, and there is no place to turn around, and you've got a hundred cars behind you. Same thing with Freeways.

And the point of this thread is the danger to innocents. If I get into an accident due to you causing traffic, and I'm injured . . . well, I haven't killed any unarmed black men. In fact, I'm on your side for the most part. And if I'm killed in that accident, then you should all go to jail for a long time.

Strictly speaking then, wouldn't red lights be "unconstitutional"? After all, they impede progress....

By that definition, congress is unconstitutional.

 

[Paendragon]

If we're sticking to the letter of the law however you don't have a right to enter an abortion clinic, or any other establishment. But I do have a right to peacable assemble.

And in many cases the lines are kinda blurry, there aren't too many places that only one road goes to, it might be more convienent to take the freeway but there aren't a lot of places you can't get on city streets.

And a demonstration that isn't in the way isn't a demonstration that's going to accomplish anything.

Of course I do. Freedom of Movement. It's been understood to be a part of the Constitution for a very long time. In fact, it's the same thing that allows protests outside of "free speech zones". Again, your right to free speech does not supersede my right to go where I need to go.

ETA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

This is not a new idea.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Where is this freedom of movement written or even implied?

 

[Paendragon]

Where is this freedom of movement written or even implied?

See my edit above.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The "freedom of movement" you reference seems to deal exclusively with government imposed restrictions on travel.

Your extrapolation of this "right" would criminalize a traffic jam.

 

[Paendragon]

The "freedom of movement" you reference seems to deal exclusively with government imposed restrictions on travel.

Your extrapolation of this "right" would criminalize a traffic jam.

It's been interpreted, rightly in my opinion, as the right to move unimpeded within the limits of the law. I have the right to walk on the sidewalk, or the street, but not into your living room without your permission. You as a government, or an individual, don't have the right to impede me in going about my business in a peaceable and legal way.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm still reading some of the details of it but not only does this seem to mostly apply to the government but more to the point in the modern world we've kinda said fuck that.

The existence of passports and immigration laws amongst other things show that this "right" they didn't bother to right down because it was so basic has complications.

And well it should, I'm not really sure we want people freely traveling to Syria, there are enough diseases that are all but wiped out the West that I'm all about us having control of our borders, etc, etc.

 

[Paendragon]

I'm still reading some of the details of it but not only does this seem to mostly apply to the government but more to the point in the modern world we've kinda said fuck that.

The existence of passports and immigration laws amongst other things show that this "right" they didn't bother to right down because it was so basic has complications.

And well it should, I'm not really sure we want people freely traveling to Syria, there are enough diseases that are all but wiped out the West that I'm all about us having control of our borders, etc, etc.

It's a long, convoluted legal history. I don't envy you the research.

I was force-fed a lot of it in assisting my girlfriend at the time pass law school and the bar exam. I feel like I graduated law school with her, albeit now most of what I new is 15-years out of date. I don't believe that one has changed . . .

 

[Paendragon]

Everyone needs to remember, Freedom of Speech is not without limitation. The SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the "time, place, and manner" restrictions.

You can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and complain about me doing X, Y, and Z . . . but you can't do so at 3AM while the neighbors are trying to sleep. Wrong time.

My point is, and has been since the OP, that these sort of demonstrations are unsafe to motorists. It's not the place for it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And I do agree for the most part.

My point was merely that a two hundred year old document needs to be updated to deal with the modern world and not just on this issue, on most issues.

 

[Paendragon]

And I do agree for the most part.

My point was merely that a two hundred year old document needs to be updated to deal with the modern world and not just on this issue, on most issues.

Good luck with that, my friend.

We can't get 2/3 of the country to agree on what color the sky is.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No shit.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Good luck with that, my friend.

We can't get 2/3 of the country to agree on what color the sky is.

Not only that, but almost (I hope not more) 1/3 are the sort who not only will tell you the sky is green, but, if you take them outside on a cloudless day at noon and point at the sky, will tell you, "See?! I told you! It's green!"

We get a lot of those in the Lit RWCJ.

 

[Que]

Not only that, but almost (I hope not more) 1/3 are the sort who not only will tell you the sky is green, but, if you take them outside on a cloudless day at noon and point at the sky, will tell you, "See?! I told you! It's green!"

We get a lot of those in the Lit RWCJ.

Wow. What useful insight. Always good to identify the intransigent side of an impasse. If those stubborn motherfuckers would just agree with you, am I right?

Silly of me to be arguing that the right of transit has survived from 1215 to the present time. I am sure as a lawyer you would argue against such a RWCJ position.

PS: What is it with the Right-Wing and their apparent association with circle jerks, and why is it that I have never been invited to one?

You can't do that on a bridge. Especially when it's divided by direction, and there is no place to turn around, and you've got a hundred cars behind you. Same thing with Freeways.

And the point of this thread is the danger to innocents. If I get into an accident due to you causing traffic, and I'm injured . . . well, I haven't killed any unarmed black men. In fact, I'm on your side for the most part. And if I'm killed in that accident, then you should all go to jail for a long time.



By that definition, congress is unconstitutional.

I didn't LOL, but I did smile at that one.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I suspect more than a few of the people in Congress are using diapers.

They probably are, but what is your point. After a certain age, many people, especially men, wear Depends or some similar kind of underwear. You will probably do it yourself eventually.