Violent Flash Mobs organized through social media

Jack21222

Looks like San Francisco is putting some of this to the test:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/am...139693608.html

DoggerDan

I believe the right as explained in the Constitution (1st Amendment) is the right to peaceably assemble. Outlawing non-peaceful assemblies is Constitutional. I don't think outlawing assemblies in general is Constitutional, though I think SCOTUS has upheld a municipality's right to require permits. When the authorities have points of contact who're organizing the event, there's less liklihood the event will result in illegal and riotous acts.

WhoWee

I'm SHOCKED that al jazeera would run a story comparing unrest in the US to unrest in Egypt.

Jack21222

The article was not about such a comparison. There you go again, taking a minor tangential issue and trying to steer the whole thread into discussing it.

Are you doubting the facts presented in the article, or is your only problem just one line in one paragraph?

WhoWee

You made a point to post it. How does my commenting on YOUR post pull the thread off topic?
Your post-my bold
"A rail transit provider in the United States disabled mobile phone services to prevent a planned protest on Thursday, attracting criticism and unflattering comparisons to crackdowns on dissent in the Middle East."

Jack21222

So you didn't bother to read the article. I was just providing snippets to show what the article was about.

Anyway, would you like to comment on the actions of BART, or continue with the "hurr durr Al Jazeera derp derp derping?"

WhoWee

I like the idea of (first) flashing a message (to everyone with a cell in an area targeted for attack) that vandalism and violence will be prosecuted. Then if activity continues - a temporary block with an additional message explaining why - temporary meaning perhaps an hour to cool down the growth of the mob. I think the 911 capability should be maintained on all phones in spite of the block.

As for ""hurr durr Al Jazeera derp derp derping?"" - no comment?

SteveL27

How would you know ahead of time? Isn't this a bit like arresting you for a crime the government thinks you are going to commit in the future? As in the movie Minority Report.

turbo

That's the tack that the ACLU will take in court, and they will win, IMO. The sad thing is that large crowds can be unpredictable, and violence and vandalism can erupt even though the organizer(s) had no such intent. Prior restraint is a very slippery slope.

ThomasT

The drift of the thread seems to be that not much can be done to stop or at least minimize this sort of thing. Some things that might be done are to change laws (provide tougher penalties), and actually uniformly enforce and prosecute them, so that the consequences for getting caught are more or less certain and pretty severe. But that's not likely to happen for a number of reasons.

So it seems that this trend in electronically facilitated 'wilding' and thuggery isn't just here to stay for the foreseeable future, but will increasingly be a fact of life in urban areas, since the police really can't protect against it and law abiding citizens are forbidden by law to use the sort of force that would be sufficient to stop it.

Proton Soup

oh, that last part would only go on for so long before citizens get fed up and oust all the politicians who support it. in fact, letting the public get a black eye by sitting back and not policing is just the sort of manipulation you'd want to exert to get approval for applying more draconian measures.

WhoWee

You really can't expect to have it both ways. If the police have to wait until a crime has taken place - then make sure they don't violate the rights of protestors when making an arrest - damage will occur, people will be injured, and some (if not most) of the criminals will exade capture and prosecution - won't they?

Proton Soup

if the G8 were to visit London for a summit right now, cops would be busting heads of protestors left and right. same would go here at a democrat or republican national committee meeting.

SteveL27

Hypotheticals:

1) Suppose a newspaper plans to publish the location of a demonstration in which there is some nonzero probability of violence. May the government order the newspaper to not publish that information?

2) May the government forcibly shut down the operation of a newspaper that publishes information displeasing to the government?

CAC1001

Well I was wrong there!

I hope they don't actually take that step though. However, in the UK, I may be wrong, but isn't there technically no right to freedom of speech there?

Galteeth

If you explicitly organize a group with the intention of causing violence, it's surely criminal. The thing is, that's already a crime.

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-...-flash-mob-law

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-...-maybe-illegal

The law, as it's written, adds penalties for not only actions, but how the person found out about the event.

To understand why this is a constitutional issue: Many cities already have laws on the books about "illegal assemblies" that wouldn't past a constitutional review. Same thing with "failure to disperse" ordinances.

Imagine a legitimate political protest where people are arrested for various reasons. Even if the original reason they were arrested turned out to be invalid, they are now facing a second charge they have to defend based on the way they heard about the protest. Furthermore, this is essentially penalizing people not for the action, but for participation in free speech. For example, if someone was arrested at a protest, and they had had heard about it through a flyer, they would be facing lesser charges then if they heard about it over the internet.

These arguments may sound subtle to you, but they are an extremely important topic right now. Since more and more political organizing and communication is done over the internet, the potential chilling of that vehicle is very important to people who are concerned about civil liberties.

Let me give you a practical example. A group is planning an anti-war protest, and they distribute information over the internet. Members might be inclined to say, I am hesitant to go because if an arrest does occur, I will now be facing greater repercussions then before. This is a legal disincentive to use the internet as a means of communication.

It also establishes a bad precedent, targeting methods of speech instead of criminal actions themselves.

EDIT: Furthermore in order to be enforceable (which it probably wouldn't be) the police would have to be able to search all of a persons' communications to have proof they received knowledge of the event electronically, and possibly their friends communications.


I am not trying to argue the validity of these positions, I know you and I have a very different take on such issues, i am just answering your question from the point of view of civil libertarians.

Galteeth

To be fair the law in question as I understand it was not suggesting outlawing the communication of such information (would would hands down be unconstitutional) but rather adding penalties if someone were arrested for the means in which they communicated beforehand.