Cindy Sheehan Arrested at White House Protest

[Moonbear]

Well, that's my point, I would expect any group that acted in this manner to have been arrested. I'm not surprised that they were. I'm sure they wanted to be arrested to get more press.

If their intention was to practice civil disobedience, as Astronuc's posts have indicated, then they may have been doing it for more than just the press (though I'm sure that was a big part of it). They may be prepared to challenge the laws requiring permits or otherwise restricting their right to protest, but you have to suffer some damages as a result of the law (such as having your arrest plastered all over the news) before you can challenge it.

 

[Evo]

I doubt that their intention is to protest permits. The last thing the Bush admin wants right now is more bad press on this and Sheehan's group knows that and they also knew that their behavior would give the authorities no choice. It's so transparent. It's all part of the game.

 

[Evo]

Yeah, that's another law I never understood. Of course it only gets enforced when someone doesn't like the look of the person standing around. It seems if you stand outside in a business suit, people assume you're waiting for your ride home or for an appointment with someone inside, but if you stand around wearing ripped jeans, have a few tattoos and your lip pierced, someone's going to call it loitering. Mostly it's used in areas with a lot of drug dealing or prostitution to keep the "bad elements" off the streets, but that means you're arresting people for looking suspicious or standing around the wrong place, not because they've actually done anything wrong.

Unless it's a large gang of meninhats.

Laws are enacted because someone wanted them. Laws are repealed when enough people don't want them.

If a group of drug dealers & prostitutes started congregating outside of our homes, we would love this law (well, some of you might not mind ). Ok, what if it was a group of bible thumping, born again, ID pushing, hell fire & brimstone evangelists?

 

[SOS2008]

The freedom of assembly in order to protest sometimes conflicts with laws intended to protect public safety, even in democratic countries: in many cities, the police are authorized by law to disperse any crowd (including a crowd of political protesters) which threatens public safety, or which the police cannot control. The idea is to prevent rioting. Often local law requires that a permit must be obtained in advance by protest organizers if a protest march is anticipated; the permit application can be denied. Sometimes this bureaucratic power is abused by lawmakers if the protest is not a popular one in the community or with the local government, with the permit process in some cities taking a great deal of time, organization, and even money required before a permit is issued -- and then, when issued, time and location restrictions are sometimes added.

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

 

[loseyourname]

^
Protests of the 2000 DNC in Los Angeles are a great example of the above. Groups were restricted to "free speech zones" several blocks from the actual convention where neither the delegates nor the press paid any attention to them. The worst part is that Staples Center is surrounded by leagues of huge parking lots, and the Los Angeles Convention Center, which each could have afforded large spaces set aside for the protesters to demonstrate. Instead, they sent them over to Pershing Park, which stands on the other side of several blocks worth of 50 story skyscrapers from Staples!

 

[Evo]

^
Protests of the 2000 DNC in Los Angeles are a great example of the above. Groups were restricted to "free speech zones" several blocks from the actual convention where neither the delegates nor the press paid any attention to them. The worst part is that Staples Center is surrounded by leagues of huge parking lots, and the Los Angeles Convention Center, which each could have afforded large spaces set aside for the protesters to demonstrate. Instead, they sent them over to Pershing Park, which stands on the other side of several blocks worth of 50 story skyscrapers from Staples!

I have a problem with the designated "free speech zones" aka outer Siberia.

 

[Moonbear]

Unless it's a large gang of meninhats.

Laws are enacted because someone wanted them. Laws are repealed when enough people don't want them.

If a group of drug dealers & prostitutes started congregating outside of our homes, we would love this law (well, some of you might not mind ). Ok, what if it was a group of bible thumping, born again, ID pushing, hell fire & brimstone evangelists?

Hmm...given the choice between meninhats, drug dealers and prostitutes, or evangelists, I think I'll take the drug dealers and prostitutes.

But, seriously, if it's a public sidewalk, they have a right to be there even if I don't like it. I was never fond of the teenagers hanging out with their pants around their knees and their underwear sticking out in my last neighborhood, but they had every right to be there. If they come onto my property, then I can have them arrested and removed for trespassing. It's one of those laws that probably wouldn't hold up if it was challenged, but since the people charged with it tend to be indigent, they can't afford to challenge it, or don't have the education to realize they could or should challenge it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's pretty obvious that the permit process can be abused by the government but there is good reason for the permit process to exist. By going through a permit process the city can determine if the nature of the protest will be a problem such as say a KKK rally going on in Compton. Yes maybe KKK members have the right to say what ever they want but if they stage a sit in on the sidewalk in Compton, peaceful or not, there are going to be problems and legally such problems would be the fault of the KKK members because it was their activity that caused a disturbance. So there is one.
Two... The city can coordinate itself so as to minimize potential problems in the way of traffic jams, foot traffic, safety of the protesters, safety of the public at large, ect ect... If they know when and where such a gathering will be taking place they can have more police officers present and make sure not to allow other similar activities that may cause conflict in the same location at the same time.
Regardless of anyone's rights I don't want to have to deal with the problems resultant from a KKK rally setting up next to a gay rights march, the problems that could arise from such a thing being an infringment upon the rights of the public at large and their pursuit life liberty and happiness.


On the matter of loitering, this as far as I can tell is mainly to protect business owners. If I own a shop and there is a large group of people gathered outside my store which is detering paying customers from entering my establishment I'd liek to have some manner of taking care of that.
My friends and I had a guy working at a seven eleven tell us that he was going to call the cops on us if we didn't leave his parking lot. We had bought refreshments in the store and were playing chess on the hood of my friend's car. Really nasty scary people we must be huh?

 

[SOS2008]

Ok, what if it was a group of bible thumping, born again, ID pushing, hell fire & brimstone evangelists?

You mean like this?

Anti-gay church protests at soldiers’ funerals
Associated Press
Aug. 28, 2005

SMYRNA, Tenn. - Members of a church say God is punishing American soldiers for defending a country that harbors gays, and they brought their anti-gay message to the funerals Saturday of two Tennessee soldiers killed in Iraq.
----------
The church members carried signs and shouted things such as “God hates fags” and “God hates you.”
----------
The church members held protesting permits, and counterprotesters in Smyrna turned their backs to Westboro Baptist members until time expired on the protest permits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/

 

[Evo]

You mean like this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/

See, anyone can get a permit.

 

[Moonbear]

On the matter of loitering, this as far as I can tell is mainly to protect business owners. If I own a shop and there is a large group of people gathered outside my store which is detering paying customers from entering my establishment I'd liek to have some manner of taking care of that.

You mean like the animal rights protesters in front of the fur shop? In the town where I grew up, this was a regular occurrence. The funny thing was that the fur shop was small and tucked back so it was pretty hard to see from the highway...I never knew it was there until the protesters showed up. I think the protesters actually helped their business by getting people to notice the shop.

My friends and I had a guy working at a seven eleven tell us that he was going to call the cops on us if we didn't leave his parking lot. We had bought refreshments in the store and were playing chess on the hood of my friend's car. Really nasty scary people we must be huh?

Yep, nothing but chess-playing rabble rousers! Of course, in that case, if he owned the parking lot, he could throw you off it for any reason he wanted. You might have thought differently about it if you were standing on the public sidewalk just chatting while deciding where to go next or waiting for another friend to pick you up and drive you home.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, that's another law I never understood. Of course it only gets enforced when someone doesn't like the look of the person standing around. It seems if you stand outside in a business suit, people assume you're waiting for your ride home or for an appointment with someone inside, but if you stand around wearing ripped jeans, have a few tattoos and your lip pierced, someone's going to call it loitering. Mostly it's used in areas with a lot of drug dealing or prostitution to keep the "bad elements" off the streets, but that means you're arresting people for looking suspicious or standing around the wrong place, not because they've actually done anything wrong.

As a matter of fact, one of the biggest groups targeted for that is affluent whites being in places where you wouldn't expect them to be. The assumption being that affluent whites don't hang around in run-down parts of the city at 2:00 in the morning unless they are looking to score some drugs.

 

[revelator]

That's kinda funny. I figure it's the people who already have drugs and aren't looking to score, that would be the most worthwhile to arrest. There's no law being broken by the dude who doesn't yet have any drugs.

 

[Evo]

That's kinda funny. I figure it's the people who already have drugs and aren't looking to score, that would be the most worthwhile to arrest. There's no law being broken by the dude who doesn't yet have any drugs.

The point in Russ' scenario would be to make them leave the area, thus (supposedly) thwart their efforts to buy drugs.