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: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

It's your claim. Prove it your own self. I'm just going to assume you are a liar until you do.




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

There are protests out front of the White House on a near daily basis. When was the last time you heard of one that got violent/destructive?

I've lived in the DC area my entire life and I can't think of a single one.
edit on 10/10/2018 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?



Can I open carry my sidearm at these DC protests?
Are you as concerned about my constitutional right or are you just worried about specific rights?

Eliminating protests is unconstitutional,
Restricting the location of protests is not.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?



Can I open carry my sidearm at these DC protests?
Are you as concerned about my constitutional right or are you just worried about specific rights?

Whataboutism.


Eliminating protests is unconstitutional,
Restricting the location of protests is not.

Not according to the SCOTUS rulings specifically saying that you can't restrict access to that sidewalk outside the White House for protests. Try again.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

And if the government decides to pass a law restricting protests from occurring on any public land, would that be fine too?


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting.

Seems to me that the Trump administration is thinking about putting the same restrictions in place that public universities have for conservative protests.


Now I'm not a leftist hypocrite, but it seems to me that those who applaud universities doing this against conservatives would be all for this.

Being equal and all.

But the ACLU is only interested in this.


hmmf.


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lol. Seems to me you're unwilling to discuss anything with anyone unless it's something you want to hear.

Otherwise it's deflection or whataboutism.

So what's the point of this thread?

Oh yes... Trump bad!

Is this an off-topic whataboutism deflection?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   

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.


That is a flat out lie.

1. There is no right to protest. The right is to peaceably assemble. Nothing those jacksnips do is covered constitutionally.

2. Being paid, and bussed in. With professional signs is NOT average people.

Rent a mobs have no rights.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The trump administration has made a proposal.
The proposal will go thru due process before its enacted. Until they change something, nothing has been violated.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Well played op.
Tho it is not "Trump" that is doing any of this it is in fact the National Park Service. Not that anyone would know that from your title and description.
Perhaps some of that incivility order broadcast by your leader recently?
www.nps.gov...



Proposed National Park Service First Amendment and Special Event Permit regulations would provide clarity while protecting iconic views in Washington, D.C.




WASHINGTON - In an effort to provide clarity to First Amendment demonstrations and special event permit regulations, the National Park Service (NPS) is seeking public comment on proposed revisions to Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 7.96 for the National Mall, President’s Park and other national parks in the Washington, D.C. area. The modifications would maintain opportunities for people to hold special events and exercise their right to demonstrate while outlining clear parameters that protect the iconic landmarks, views and grounds for use and enjoyment of citizens and visitors from around the globe.

I know it is difficult...words and stuff...but there is a process to make changes in the cfr and the park service is going through that process.



The National Mall and President’s Park are regarded as premier civic and symbolic spaces in our nation and the volume and complexity of permit requests has increased dramatically over the years. Each year, the NPS issues an average of 750 permits for First Amendment demonstrations and an additional 1,500 permits for special events in and around D.C. More individuals and groups seek to use these iconic locations for demonstrations or events such as concerts and festivals. As the use of these areas increases, the NPS is looking for more efficient ways to serve the public while at the same time protecting the resources that others seek to enjoy. For example, this rule would provide more information to permit applicants about the status of their requests and simplify maximum permit duration periods. The rule would identify areas that are best suited for the placement of structures such as art installations and concert stages. This would provide permit applicants with more certainty about where their event can take place while protecting iconic viewsheds, such as the view from the White House to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, and places of solemn contemplation, such as the Freedom Wall Plaza at the World War II Memorial.

Hmm seems they are up front about the changes proposed and the reasons for such.



Through October 15, 2018, the public may comment on the NPS proposal for Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 7.96, the federal regulation that governs the permitting of demonstrations and special events in the National Capital Region. The official proposed rule appears in the Federal Register. From www.regulations.gov... search “RIN 1024-AE45”. Comments must be submitted through official channels during the 60-day comment period: Comment online at Regulations.gov (preferred method). Search for “RIN 1024-AE45” and click on the "Comment Now" button. Mail or hand deliver comments to National Park Service, National Mall and Memorial Parks, 900 Ohio Drive SW, Washington, DC 20024, Attn: Brian Joyner. Comments submitted by email will not be accepted. Following the public comment period, the NPS will review all comments received and conduct an analysis. The NPS will then determine to either proceed with the proposal and prepare a final rule, issue a new modified proposal, or withdraw the proposal. View the proposed rule

oh my look at that
they are actually following the rules
not nearly as sinister as implied by the op

edit on 10/10/2018 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So wait, now you don't have a problem with the constitution?

Anyways, these protests are turning into violence. I wouldn't want people crapping on my lawn either and wouldn't mind them having to hang out outside of the sidewalk.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
You are right OP. It is a limitation to Constitutional provisions and rights. But then again, so are Federal, State and Local law enforcement officers that would take action to stop a makeshift militia from wiping out protesters that got out of hand (like the OWS encampments) or a riot in progress (like what happened in Baltimore or Ferguson).

Freedom is a two way street. So are limitations to those freedoms.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   

he Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly.[3] The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”[6]


www.loc.gov...



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order.[13



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
When conservatives are continuously attacked, spit on, and then demonized by the MSM just for supporting Trump. Don't act surprised when a lot of us don't give a # that they are cracking down on protesting laws. Plus, I rarely see anyone on the right protesting anything really, but if there was something worth protesting about. I wouldn't give a crap if it was unlawful or not.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


Damn dude, turn your tv on some time.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The actual nps draft proposal as linked in the article differs from the allegations being made. Pages 88-91 discuss the sidewalk. It still says no more than 750 persons may demonstrate on the sidewalk. Meaning the long standing limit of 750 people is unchanged. The fees alleged only seem to refer to special events and demonstrations. So you krazyshot are unaffected from needing a fee. But if you were participating, for example, as one of the up to 50 groups receiveing grant money from open societies foundation to stage paid protests for profit than there would be fees required for collection.

That is a very reasonable and measured approach since it is those for profit fake protest groups that leave the most disgusting trash ridden warscapes behind when their contract is fulfilled and they depart.

I guess foreign interests should not have initiated a for profit fake protest industry for the government the collect a tax on. It is not a legitimate demonstration if people and organizers are being paid for their participation.

I suggest you actually start reading the document rather than the slanted intentionally misleading article.

The actual proposals being made as I continue to read are actually quite mundane, trivial, and outright opposite of the lies being peddled by the paper. The fact that it is being directly attributed to Trump is even more disingenuous and insincere.

This is why I spend my days reading foreign press. There is just no more honesty and integrity left in domestic news. Read the damn thing krazyshot. It's only just over 100 pages. Definitions and a table of proposals fill most of the beginning and middle. White House I read from pages 88 onward.
edit on 10-10-2018 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
When conservatives are continuously attacked, spit on, and then demonized by the MSM just for supporting Trump. Don't act surprised when a lot of us don't give a # that they are cracking down on protesting laws. Plus, I rarely see anyone on the right protesting anything really, but if there was something worth protesting about. I wouldn't give a crap if it was unlawful or not.

"they" are in no way cracking down on protesting laws.
that is bs spin from the aclu passed on by the op.
the national park service wants to change its portion of the cfr and the national mall is a SMALL portion of that proposed change.
surprisingly the aclu and the op left that detail out.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
The actual nps draft proposal as linked in the article differs from the allegations being made. Pages 88-91 discuss the sidewalk. It still says no more than 750 persons may demonstrate on the sidewalk. Meaning the long standing limit of 750 people is unchanged. The fees alleged only seem to refer to special events and demonstrations. So you krazyshot are u affected from needing a fee. But if you were participating, for example, as one of the up to 50 groups receiveing grant money from open societies foundation to stage paid protests for profit than there would be fees required for collection.

That is a very reasonable and measured approach since it is those for profit fake protest groups that leave the most disgusting trash ridden warscapes behind when their contract is fulfilled and they depart.

I guess foreign interests should not have initiated a for profit fake protest industry for the government the collect a tax on. It is not a legitimate demonstration if people and organizers are being paid for their participation.

I suggest you actually start reading the document rather than the slanted intentionally misleading article.

amazing how their bs spin falls apart upon simple inspection
THEY are counting on people not actually reading or doing any research



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That word is just an excuse when you can't debate a similar issue. Nice job running away.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join