SteveL27
- 797
- 7
Evo said:It's clear from his posts that he was unaware of the law.
I'm painfully aware of the modern development of "free speech zones" and the like. You seem to believe that civil liberties are obtained by asking the government's permission. This is not the time or the place for a lengthy history lesson; but the absurdity of asking a repressive government's permission to protest that government's policies speaks for itself. If people waited for government permission, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus, gays would be in jail, and for that matter, we'd still be a British colony.
Evo said:I really wish people would invest some time in researching the facts before they post. A lot of members do take the time, so it's unfair that some people don't.
A totally unwarranted personal attack. It seems to me you're drinking a lot of government Kool-Aid. The U.S. Constitution gives people the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. Permits and free speech zones are the latest attempt to prevent people from asserting their rights.
In any event, you continue to focus on the protesters. I've already said that I'll stipulate that a flash mob on a subway platform at rush hour is not a good idea. The question at hand is not whether this particular group of protesters are expressing themselves in an appropriate manner; the question is whether BART is within its rights, legally and morally, to shut down cell service in advance of a protest, before any crime has been committed? In fact, before anyone had even shown up?
It's a slippery slope problem. If what BART did is ok this time, what is the limit? That's why I started a few posts ago by asking if people believe that the government has the right to shut down a newspaper for printing things the government doesn't like. WikiLeaks comes to mind. Bradley Manning is in jail and at one point was being subjected to treatment that was illegal and bordered on psychological torture. His "crime?" Revealing some of the corruption and, uh, cattle excrement [LOL I got ***'d] at the heart of our recent foreign policy misadventures.
So ... can the government torture someone -- someone who has not yet been convicted of any crime, mind you -- because the government says so? Or do we still have due process in this country?
Evo my friend, due process and the rule of law are not something you ask the government permission for. Due process and the rule of law are things people fight for every day in the courts and in politics and in every interaction with the government. And throughout history, when the courts and the political system didn't work ... people in this country laid down their lives for due process and the rule of law.
If BART can turn off cell service before anyone even shows up to protest; then what CAN'T the government do, in your opinion?
Evo said:The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.
I'm sure President Mubarak would agree. I just wonder if you've thought through the consequences of your own naive trust in getting government's "permission" to oppose its policies.
Last edited: