Originally Posted by nsacpi
It's nice that they have Republicans demanding the people see the evidence. Watching their fake outrage is like watching SNL at this point. They are parodies of themselves at this point.
It's nice that they have Republicans demanding the people see the evidence. Watching their fake outrage is like watching SNL at this point. They are parodies of themselves at this point.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
It's a college campus. There have undoubtedly been incidents with people making a scene in the past. How those were treated would be interesting to see.
The idiots weren't charged with disturbing the peace though. They were charged under a statue dealing with subjecting people or a class of people to ridicule on the basis of race. That statute is very, very unconstitutional.
Its rhetorical because its based on emotional reactions to language. That means it will evolve over time to include more that weak prople cant bear to listen to.
What?
I'm pretty sure the police determine if you are breaking the law by disturbing the peace or not. Not random "weak people."
Ok...lets develop this further.
What would go into the polices decision?
For sure, but each situation is different. Police don't pull give citations to every speeder they see. That doesn't mean it weakens the merits of speeding laws.
But certainly I agree that the statute they were charged with is dumb, if not unconstitutional itself. I'm not sure why they were charged with such an obscure law when disturbing the peace is a pretty easy catch all for such a situation. The issue I have is more with Sturg saying you have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and wherever you want without cause for legal consequence. That simply isn't true annd he knows it.
What were they charged with, carp?
Why is it so hard to admit this is against the first amendment? Why do you feel the need to find a way to justify it?
This is the slope we've been warning about and it's starting to peel into law enforcement
Video evidence of the alleged crime certainly helps.
Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that are content neutral are constitutional. You don't have a right to read your manifesto into a bullhorn at 3 AM in your neighborhood. You can't give a speech in the middle of the interstate. Etc. Those are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that don't differentiate based on content.
I do think disturbing the peace would have been a big stretch in this case and still probably violative of their constitutional rights. Better than charging them under the silly statute they did though.
What is the crime?
What other evidence would exist to make this determination?
I've stated this particular statute is certainly dumb, if not unconstitutional. This law has been around in Connecticut since the 60's I believe, so this "slippery slope" is rather dumb, imo.
You entirely missed the point though. Just because this particular statute is unconstitutional, doesn't justify their actions as lawful, as you claim they are. Again, this behavior is absolutely a classic example of disturbing the peace.
By this logic every protestor in this country could be arrested for "disturbing the peace"
You've bent very far backwards here.
Free speech is under attack as I've been saying for quite some time.
It has to be under attack to acheive the end goal.
You always strip a population of speech and ability to defend themselves in a government takeover. Textbook and the orange man bad crowd just cant see it.
I pulled the disturbing the peace statute. The only part they could be charged under is the prohibition from using abusive or obscene language in public, something that cops try to charge people under in every state but which is almost always thrown out when challenged.
Most disturbing the peace convictions are because of something like fighting, yelling threats, or the like.
In fact they could.
Protests by groups require a permit.
Un-permitted are subject to arrest.
Remember the 1% protests of the early teens?
Or the Iraq War protests?
Jane Fonda last week
Didn't you and your friends have to have a permit in Charlottesville?
Please note, free speech has always and will always be/been under attack.
Thus a 1st Amendment
You obviously didn't learn anything about civics, being to busy defending the entitled class - to learn anything along the way
Last edited by 57Brave; 10-24-2019 at 08:07 AM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Well there are several instances that you do have to have a permit for protesting. So, you absolutely could be arrested for protesting without a permit (I assume disturbing the peace would be the actual charge, may be loitering, I don't know) if you refuse to disperse. Again, this isn't anything new. These laws have been in place for a pretty long time and have been upheld in court.
Last edited by Carp; 10-24-2019 at 08:44 AM.
During the 2004 (R) Convention Bush Admin created safe zones blocks away from the convention center (MSG ?) Those caught protesting anywhere outside those zones were arrested on sight.
I am sure there are instances where permits are not necessary.
Striker ... ???
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
I would agree. In general, it's a big nothing burger to get arrested for disturbing the peace. In all likelihood, you would get a small fine or get it thrown out completely because the wording on this law is vague (on purpose) and it can be hard to prove. However, there is absolutely precedence for it though, which is the point.
Last edited by Carp; 10-24-2019 at 09:04 AM.
Permitting some protests is allowed for considerations like traffic, public safety, etc. It's part of reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. There are strict standards though.
Permits can't be completely discretional to the body giving them. They have to be given according to content neutral standards and the standards must be reasonable (e.g., you can deny a permit to protest on the interstate but probably not to protest in a park).
For something like a political convention where security is such a concern, having designated areas would probably be a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.
But the government can't require permits for all demonstrations. They'd be hard pressed to justify the need for a permit for you as an individual to stand on the sidewalk outside a government building with a sign.
Disturbing the fact means whatever cops want it to mean. You can simply be walking to your car not saying anything and be arrested and convicted of disturbing the peace if a cop says you did. Its incredibly vague and widely abused.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote