It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Administration Seeks to Stifle Protests Near White House and on National Mall

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Trump Administration Seeks to Stifle Protests Near White House and on National Mall

President Trump has a record of attacking the rights of protesters, from suggesting that protest be illegal to praising dictators who crush any kind of dissent.

Now, the Trump administration proposes to dramatically limit the right to demonstrate near the White House and on the National Mall, including in ways that would violate court orders that have stood for decades. The proposal would close 80 percent of the White House sidewalk, put new limits on spontaneous demonstrations, and open the door to charging fees for protesting.

Fee requirements could make mass protests like Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic 1963 March on Washington and its “I have a dream” speech too expensive to happen.

The public has until October 15 to comment on the plans, and on Monday, we submitted our formal written comment explaining why the planned changes are unconstitutional.

Looks like Trump is trying something unconstitutional again. I guess the Snowflake in Chief is getting pissed at all the Americans protesting in DC and outside the White House, so he is trying to make the White House into a safe space for him and his administration. He is trying to block off the sidewalks outside of the White House from protesting, force a fee to protest, and make it so spontaneous protests can't happen. None of these actions are constitutionally valid. SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter.

About the sidewalk closure:

The closure would violate the earlier court order, which permits demonstrations by at least 750 people on the White House sidewalk and declares that any lower limit is “invalid and void as an unconstitutional infringement of plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech and to assemble peaceably and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Also this:

The park service didn’t offer any justification for closing the sidewalk. Even if it were based on security grounds, that wouldn’t pass muster because the White House fence is about to be replaced with a new, taller fence with special anti-climbing features, approved last year specifically to “meet contemporary security standards” while allowing the sidewalk to remain open.


About charging for free speech:

An even more effective way to keep the pesky protesters away is to charge a fee for the right to protest. According to the new proposal, the park service is considering charging demonstrators for things like “sanitation and trash removal” and “harm to turf.” But of course, the park service does not plan to charge the 45 million non-demonstrators who visit the National Mall every year for the fencing and sanitation their presence requires or for the harm to the turf that they cause.

The bolded part pretty much spells out that this is clearly a partisan attack on our 1st Amendment rights. The park service doesn't need funds to pay for upkeep from protesters. Trump is just trying to infringe on our 1st Amendment.

Managing public lands for the benefit of the American people is what Congress funds the National Park Service to do. That includes demonstrators just as much as tourists or hikers. While the park service may be strapped for funds, it cannot balance its budget on the backs of people seeking to exercise their constitutional rights.


About limiting spontaneous demonstrations:

The right to protest now in response to unfolding events is a key part of freedom of speech. As Judge J. Skelly Wright recognized in the ACLU-DC lawsuit against the 1967 restrictions, “Timeliness is essential to effective dissent. Delay may stifle protest as effectively as outright censorship.”


If you are a true American then you will stand up for people's right to protest (even if you don't agree with what they are protesting) and recognize that Trump is wrong here.

The heart of the matter is clear: President Trump might not like having protesters on his doorstep, but the First Amendment guarantees their right to be there.




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They stifled the DNC back here in Boston way back when with protest zones...on the other hand it's the citizens rights to lawfully assemble..



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They stifled the DNC back here in Boston way back when with protest zones...on the other hand it's the citizens rights to lawfully assemble..

Don't care. Stop whataboutism to something that happened already. Whatever you are talking about here doesn't justify Trump's actions in the OP. I don't happen to like protest zones either, but this thread isn't about them.
edit on 10-10-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


+12 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think they should make being paid to protest illegal.

Or just enforce the sedition laws on the books.

Then there wouldn't be a crowd.




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think they should make being paid to protest illegal.

Or just enforce the sedition laws on the books.

Then there wouldn't be a crowd.


I think you should address the OP topic and not deflect with unprovable irrelevancy.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Not surprising. Going all the way back to Trump's first day as President we've seen how he deals with protests criticizing him. If he can't deter people by violating their 6th Amendment rights might a still just strip then of their 1st Amendment rights.

Of course I'm sure people will be in shortly to tell us how this is a great idea. Right after they post in another thread about how great Kavanaugh is because he's a Constitutionalist.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Let them do it.... and if they go violent, bust heads and take them under arrest to a detention center to be processed. A center in say North Dakota where they can face a magistrate and sentencing. After their time is served or their fine paid. Release them.


+8 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Guess you aren't familiar with HR 347 that was signed into law by Obama?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If the protesters are peaceful by all means I'm sure the police will let them Screech at the heavens till they go blue in the face.
And if they start smashing windows and blocking traffic and threatening people or bashing the fash as they call it it should be arrested and charged for rioting



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

You mean the bill that didn't actually create any new laws but simply updated the language on a bill passed during the Nixon administration?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Let me fix something for you, when it says " spontaneous demonstrations". Let's be real here. When paid protesters pretend to be " spontaneous demonstrations" . Right there, you know the source is propaganda, comrade



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I've been to DC several times and have had tours of the white house and Capitol building.

I have no issue with restrictions being put in place to keep the sidewalks open for tourists.
Set up designated protest areas if needed, be let me walk on the damn sidewalk.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
Let them do it.... and if they go violent, bust heads and take them under arrest to a detention center to be processed. A center in say North Dakota where they can face a magistrate and sentencing. After their time is served or their fine paid. Release them.

I see you support removing first amendment rights and due process.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If the protesters are peaceful by all means I'm sure the police will let them Screech at the heavens till they go blue in the face.
And if they start smashing windows and blocking traffic and threatening people or bashing the fash as they call it it should be arrested and charged for rioting

Protesting IS preaceful. Don't confuse rioting with protesting.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I've been to DC several times and have had tours of the white house and Capitol building.

I have no issue with restrictions being put in place to keep the sidewalks open for tourists.
Set up designated protest areas if needed, be let me walk on the damn sidewalk.

So you are ok with violating the Constitution?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Let me fix something for you, when it says " spontaneous demonstrations". Let's be real here. When paid protesters pretend to be " spontaneous demonstrations" . Right there, you know the source is propaganda, comrade

Let me fix something for you. None of what you said matters to the actions in the OP being unconstitutional.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Aaaaaaah, yes, I think we all know how peaceful they have been.

a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Guess you aren't familiar with HR 347 that was signed into law by Obama?

Whataboutism.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
Aaaaaaah, yes, I think we all know how peaceful they have been.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


They have been peaceful. How about showing me some news articles of the damage done to the National Park services from the many protests over the last two years? Furthermore, you are justifying infringing on Constitutional rights based on right wing propaganda.
edit on 10-10-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
No, You go do that. Google is your friend.




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join