Alex Jones Arrested In New York

Weird, you post isn't showing up in the thread yet but I can look under your posts to see it.

The link you provided does not state that they had their right to protest stopped. They could not carry on a march, but they were still free to protest. You have not provided me one case yet where a person or group has been denied their right of protest completely. If it is so easy to provide, please do so. It's a simple request to back up your statement.

The fact that you think less than seven permits have been denied makes a mockery of common sense and reality in general. I had the idea that you might just have a different opinion but it's now clear that you are just here to disrupt and pretend that all is well with the "law".

So does that mean I am not worthy of protection under your system of justice? I will make myself clear to you: Show me seven instances of someone's right to protest being completely denied, you may not be able to protest when and where you want, but you still can protest. Show me examples of that not being the case.

IMO, once you start deeming someone more worthy of the same protections as another citizen who you disagree with, then you are really headed down the wrong path. To imply that somene is more deserving of "protection" simply because of their status or perceived worth is the start of the "police state" you decry.

I'm not picking a fight with you, just stating my opinion, I am allowed to do that right?

[edit on 16-9-2007 by pavil]

A four in one for you...

by lightworker12
Like I said you've needed a permit to film in NYC for a long time. Even at least a decade before 9/11 and any mention of terrorism/police state.

Maybe before you HEARD about the terrorism/police state but Alex has been at this since the early 90's! The fact that you are unware does not mean the rest of us are.
You do not in fact need a permit and those rules that would restrict such small groups from filming is in fact still being drafted under HUGE protest.

The April settlement of the lawsuit, filed on behalf of documentary filmmaker Rakesh Sharma after he was detained by police for handheld video camera filming, required the city to create rules defining when people need permits for the first time in history. "We filed the lawsuit because there had been arbitrary, discriminatory and uneven enforcement" of permit requirements, said executive director Donna Lieberman. The 30-day comment period after the May 25 posting was extended to this past Friday after an outcry at the June 28 hearing that not enough people were made aware of the proposed rules.

www.hollywoodreporteresq.com...

The New York Civil Liberties Union had complained that the new rules would unfairly restrict amateur photography, and that the requirements to have a $1 million dollar insurance policy for various types of filming was prohibitive. They said that New York City was encroaching on First Amendment rights and threatened to sue.

www.nppa.org...

Under the proposals, which the NYC MOFTB says simply "codify existing procedures," "Film or still photography activity involving a tripod and a crew of 5 or more persons (at one site for 10 or more minutes) would require a permit," in the words of the MOFTB proposal, "Or the same activity among two people at a single site for more than 30 minutes." And anyone obtaining a permit must carry $1 million in liability insurance.

Independent filmmakers feel they will be unduly squeezed out of production by the changes. Acclaimed New York indie filmmaker Jem Cohen ("Chain," "Lost Book Found"), in a catalyzing email that alerted the film community to the changes on July 13th, said, "The fact is that we simply CANNOT predict where, when, and how long we are going to film or photograph; we CANNOT afford expensive liability insurance policies; we occasionally NEED to work with other people or to use tripods to support our gear."

www.indiewire.com...

It is one of the most iconic cities in the world and images of it are used heavily in all types of media, so I imagine the city would like to make some type of money on other people using images of it (usually in for profit projects).

Did the citizens of New York vote for this measure since the public spaces still belong to them?

If you're a tourist with a basic video camera you won't get bothered or at most you'll have to put it away until the officer is gone.

So the terrorist can take whatever pictures they like basically? As long as they don't make documentaries about police brutality and what the owners of NY have in mind for the world it's all fine and dandy?

It sounds like Jones had a major filming setup (the fact that he has serperate guys with the camera and audio equipment tells me this) and no permit.

If you think two crew members is 'major' you know about as much about film as you do about justice and the world at large. He tried to get a permit and they did not give him despite the fact that three men can't obstruct anything that can be called a sidewalk. .

Not only that but he was part of an illegal protest about a subject that is still a bit fresh in the minds of people who live in the NYC metropolitan area (I'm included in that).

It's interesting how the people's feelings are ignored while the NY major cuts subsidies but how they will employ any fantasy to prevent the people from exercising their rights.

I'm sure he also made a huge fuss when simply asked for ID.

Thanks for telling us how you think it is/was...

Anyway, this is nothing special (unless you call proving a moron is a moron special).

Thanks for telling us that you don't think Alex Jones knows what he is talking about.

Also, he wasn't singled out. It clearly states his sound man and camera guy were "harassed."

By the police as per custom...

Hence, the reason has to do with illegal filming of an illegal protest and some guy causing a huge fuss when such things are brought to his attention.

That's what they said in Nazi Germany and in every time and place throughout history when people gathered to organize or protest injustice.

Originally posted by lightworker12
Wow this topic when from one extreme of idiocy to another. Like I've already carefully explained, this is about filming permits

While you clearly want it to be about filming permits few here believes that and odds are your not going to convince us.

and one guy making a big enough fuss to get arrested over it (along with his film crew, not singled out).

Like the only shoot the leaders of protest movements? Why would they not arrest those who are stupid enough to work with Alex to expose corporate and government crimes?

This is not about the NWO arresting someone they percieve as a threat nor Osama trying to destroy America from the inside. Geez guys.

It's always about those in control doing their best to keep that control intact.

Originally posted by lightworker12
Seriously you guys should read my posts. Yes, a permit is required to film and the police are very strict with fancier cameras and sound gear (because these are almost always for a for profit production).

Does it count as profit when you tell people to give your films away and freely reproduce it? Do we have any evidence that Jones would not give away all his material free of charge had a alternative income stream?

Tourists with smally camcorders will usually not get harassed, same with whatever you are referring to about youtube and whatnot.

Clearly they don't have the audience Jones has so why would they bother them?

The article clearly states Jones has a seperate camera man and another seperate sound man, and that he was in fact filming a documentary!

And that is now illegal in NY? Why would they ever allow anyone to say anything negative when they can prevent it by not giving permits? How is this law good for anyone by those who have closets full of skeletons?

Without a permit, this is a clear violation of a long standing NYC policy and warrented fair police action. Jones was probably arrested for arguing about not having an ID and making a big fuss about his rights being trampled on while he is clearly doing something that has been established for many years as illegal.

Not having a ID on you, or refusing to display it when the officer can not offer grounds for wanting to see it, can not serve as grounds for arrest and arguing with police gives them no more legal right to arrest you than before.

There is nothing unusual here except a bunch of people in this topic not understanding a long standing law and how it clearly applies to Jones.

And you don't seem to know much about the laws you have chosen to defend in the 'public' interest.

Originally posted by lightworker12
First of all one or two sentences in my post were conjecture, the rest is 100% solid fact about the law and the fact that he had those filming people.

You might wish for that police state but it's not quite true just yet.

1) He had no ID. In some cases, this is enough to warrant an arrest if there are no other means of identifying the person.

Not having ID is NOT a crime and that is especially so when you are readily identifiable by others.

2) All of the protestors could have been arrested because their protest was illegal and had no permit (before you say that such a law is facist, I invite you to look into how large groups of people gathering in the busiest parts of NYC can clog up sidewalks and streets, aka big transit problems).

But it's interesting that the RNC can close down a few dozen blocks worth of NY whenever they wish to hold conventions? How is that in the public interest and what does that do to traffic? bah!

www.lectlaw.com...

They simply did not go about this in the most circumspect way possible and it's clear that there was a clear context to denying the permit for protest.

3) The above two make the arrest legally warranted, and this part is conjecture. Knowing the material of Jones and the crowd he was with, there is strong circumstancial evidence that he probably made a bigger deal out of the initial police encounter than was at all needed, and lead to his arrest.

Fact is they beat up plenty of other cameramen as well as some protesters, including some discovery channel cameramen,.so this was not just a question of attacking Alex Jones but a organized attempt to prevent protest on this specific issue.

We know what he preaches, so it is likely that he accused the police of singling him out and made a fuss about a police state, when in fact the officer's conduct was perfectly acceptable and warranted.

Actually they they seemed to have taken issue with the bullhorn, he so loves using, and used that as official excuse for removing him from the scene. Once again it was not 'the people of NY' that called the police but the FOX people who did not like free speech taking it's course on NY's streets.

Stellar

I would like some more factual info
on #1 please

reply to post by lightworker12

please bring on the kipper demonstration
I live next door to Marge and I am a
late night early morning kipper hunter
I am sure you wont mind me exerting my territorial rights
as granted to me by the government because
I am an indigenous people. I am sorry if you
get hurt but it is the middle of kipper season
and sane people stay inside on those nights.
my harpoon is glow in the dark so you might
have a little warning. cheerio ducks

reply to post by Terapin

Is this "jerk" Jones on death row yet? After listening to his ranting lunacy, he belongs there..............

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by Terapin
It is just a publicity ploy on his part.

He was well aware that a permit was required, and when the police arrived, he created a huge fuss rather than quietly fill out some paperwork. He WANTED a commotion and getting jailed allows him to claim it was a police state tactic. It was just his deliberate public disturbance.

Personally, I hope he gets more than a weekend in jail. Idiots like that should be kept off the street.

But don't you think its stupid to have a permit in the first place, I mean Its so weird, I thought The USA was know for being a FREE country, but you gotta have permission to carry a camera around? I hope that doesn't happen here in London. Id be pissed off.

HEY, SKIPPY! READ THIS!

"Do I need permission to film in London?

It is important that wherever you plan to film in London you get the appropriate permission. Locations may either be privately owned, or public property (including street filming) - please see below for a definition of each category.

If you are a small crew under 10 people with hand held equipment you will need to apply at least 3 days before you plan to film.

For larger, more complex shoots the amount of notice required depends on the complexity of your shoot and whether you require parking suspensions. Up to 10 working days notice may be required.

Please note: to film in any of these locations you will need Public Liability Insurance.

How do I get filming permission?

Prior to entering into any contract, it is important to contact the Borough Film Service to inform them of your filming. They will be able to inform you of potential filming hotspots and assist with any parking requirements.

Please refer to the following flow chart to show the basic process for gaining permissions to shoot:

Back to top

Download[Microsoft Word]
Location Filming - The Application Process Flow Chart (MS Word)

Download[Acrobat PDF]
Location Filming - The Application Process Flow Chart (PDF)"

Quoted from

www.filmlondon.org.uk...

The issue is not fascism, but blocking vehicular and foot traffic with a cameraman, sound crew, lights and other support personnel for a professional film project, plus the inevitable invasions of privacy involved.

I think it'd be difficult to find a major metropolis which didn't regulate professional film production on its streets in some manner.

So please spare us the knee-jerk reflex bushwah about "I thought The USA was know for being a FREE country, but you gotta have permission to carry a camera around." London's procedures for getting permission to film may actually be even more onerous than NYC's.

Originally posted by vfrickey
The issue is not fascism, but blocking vehicular and foot traffic with a cameraman, sound crew, lights and other support personnel for a professional film project, plus the inevitable invasions of privacy involved.

So the city with more than a million CCTV's watching it's citizens is a example of anything other fascist intent? Why would someone who is on the sidewalk be blocking vehicular traffic and why do you wish to compare that to a film crew that must sometimes block a road for days? As i said above it's clearly not a issue of privacy considering those camera's...

I think it'd be difficult to find a major metropolis which didn't regulate professional film production on its streets in some manner.

ALEX JONES IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL and he was NOT blocking traffic. Do you wish to make me a list with the countries that has regulations for two or three man hand held film crews when there is currently not even such rules for NY?

So please spare us the knee-jerk reflex bushwah about "I thought The USA was know for being a FREE country,

The USA was a third world corporate run hell hole long before the term
third world' even came into use so i don't have any delusions that the US were ever that 'free'.

but you gotta have permission to carry a camera around."

You don't but they sure would like to change it...

London's procedures for getting permission to film may actually be even more onerous than NYC's.

Considering that i still believe it to be the center of operations for the PTB i am in no way surprised and certainly never suggested otherwise.

Stellar

Originally posted by pavil
Weird, you post isn't showing up in the thread yet but I can look under your posts to see it.

Weird indeed.

The link you provided does not state that they had their right to protest stopped.

Given our apparently differences in interpreting the same sets of data i don't suppose it helps much to even argue with you when you make these types of claims.

They could not carry on a march, but they were still free to protest.

Right and they were already at the destination they had in mind?

You have not provided me one case yet where a person or group has been denied their right of protest completely. If it is so easy to provide, please do so. It's a simple request to back up your statement.

I have so much to do so here is a few hundred examples of the right to protest being denied.

en.wikipedia.org...

Feel free to investigate how such serious attempts at spreading information have been fought on every level.

So does that mean I am not worthy of protection under your system of justice?

It means you are probably the type of person who wont need protection from the system as you will be serving it in the hopes of escaping it's worse excesses.

I will make myself clear to you: Show me seven instances of someone's right to protest being completely denied, you may not be able to protest when and where you want, but you still can protest.

There is far more than seven when it comes to low power radio stations being shut down in violation of the US constitution.

Show me examples of that not being the case.

I can't believe that you think 'seven' is somehow a number that can be defended and i am surprised that you can be this ignorant.

IMO, once you start deeming someone more worthy of the same protections as another citizen who you disagree with, then you are really headed down the wrong path.

I just happen to believe that you wont need them as you will find a way to serve power without giving up the notion that you are 'expressing' your free will.

To imply that somene is more deserving of "protection" simply because of their status or perceived worth is the start of the "police state" you decry.

Minorities and exposed parts of any given nation are always more deserving of protection and it's expressly those we should be defending before they are all gone and we stand alone against the modern day tyrants. First they took the gays and the 'crazy' then they went after the Jews and the trade unionist and 'socialist' and finally after all Germans who expressed serious doubts about where the country were headed. If we don't defend those most vulnerable we will all pay a price.

I'm not picking a fight with you, just stating my opinion, I am allowed to do that right?

Well as with all places you are supposedly allowed to express your opinion but obviously some opinions are 'better' than others and will escape moderator attention far longer than others. It's just the way things seems to be working right now and given the side you have chosen you are certainly '
safer' for now. Remember that those who believe themselves to be running the show that we thing of as our world do not seem to have much compassion for human beings in general and they will simply use those who serve them as long as it's beneficial to them.

Sorry for being so melodramatic but that's what i think and possibly strangely experience even on this forum.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX

I have so much to do so here is a few hundred examples of the right to protest being denied.

en.wikipedia.org...

Pirate radio is the best you can do? Unlicensed broadcasts as a means of protest? Weak argument there. Sorry.

I can't believe that you think 'seven' is somehow a number that can be defended and i am surprised that you can be this ignorant.

You haven't even given me one mainstream reference, how bout one example of some major organization being denied fully its right to protest?

Well as with all places you are supposedly allowed to express your opinion but obviously some opinions are 'better' than others and will escape moderator attention far longer than others. It's just the way things seems to be working right now and given the side you have chosen you are certainly '
safer' for now.

You honestly confuse me. First you claim that some are more deserving of rights and protection than others then you Decry the supposed same thing? Which is it? Is it only opinions that you feel are worthy that are worth protection? No equal treatment under the law? I do not support the other posters statement and opinions just his or her right to do so given this Site's "laws". If you don't like a law, try to change it. If you can't get the law changed, then the majority of people probably just don't agree with you on what's right.

Originally posted by geemony
The fact is, it’s a law that’s been on the books for a very long time.

So were most laws that people destroyed by democratic or other means...

I would have more faith in Alex Jones if he wasn’t so intent on his own personal gains. And don’t be fooled he is out to make money plain and simple.

How and where is he making money given he expressly tells people to duplicate and give away the copies they may have bought or downloaded?

Ok now for the law about permits, some say it’s unconstitutional to require a permit to protest. I say it’s a very good law. For one it allows for some resemblance of organization.

And without organization is quite a bit harder for police to crack down and pre emptively arrest the organizers... Clever reasoning...

I am all for protesting peacefully for anything you want to cry about. I say protest till you drop, it’s your right. But it’s not your right to disrupt, Yell at innocent bystanders because they don’t think the way you do.

Free speech was never intended to avoid causing discomfort and disruption and it's strange how it's always the capitalist ( while people are protesting or being 'disrupted' one presumes they wont be consuming or able to hear corporate propaganda) who complain the most? How often do we see regular people going out to protest that protesters should not be allowed to protest?

I thought so yes...

With out permits and laws to structure protests we would have anarchy in the streets.

Presumably because protesters are all anarchist who gates organization and just want to disrupt stuff for no reason at all? It's funny how some will swallow the corporate view of protest so entirely without ever considering the implication of presuming that a bunch of crazed anarchist managed to be calm enough and cooperative enough to organize and pick leaders to represent their interest. Fascinating these things that people will believe if their TV's repeats it often enough.

Many people don’t understand that when the constitution was written it allowed for the creation of amendments.

I think few Americans are educated to understand much anything about their constitution.

These being changes or additions as congress and the people saw fit. Our fore fathers saw this back then that the need to change with the times would be required as our constitution is considered a living document.

Who also happened to be a bunch of wealthy land owners who were doing their express best to protect their own property and holdings first. Why would they not allow themselves to change the rules of the capitalist game when it suits them given their expressed desire to consistently control the machinery that would allow such changes?

The need to change the constitution in order to keep up with the times and with the ever changing population and political times is a no brainier.

The need to change a constitution that made many forced concession to the masses is as you say a no brainer. They were going to fight the people for as long as they could with whatever means they could and they were never going to surrender control over the legal machinery that enabled them to manipulate society for their profit and control.

I for one think most of you who are against the rule of law would be happy with no laws at all

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I mean why would we want no laws instead of just laws that are designed to protect ALL people and not just the wealthy? Why wouldn't we just wish to exchange the laws which are now protecting those who needs no protection to instead protect those who have been exploited to near death?

. Since you use those laws with-in your own agenda and attack anyone who doesn’t agree with your interpretation. The hypocrisy of it all is sad to be sure.

Talking of hypocrisy it's sad to see that you can find conspiracies everywhere beside where they really exist! You probably believe that liberals control the US media despite corporate conservative control over all the significant media companies!

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to say anything you want and do anything you want.

Freedom of speech may at this stage not mean that we can say anything we like but we should work towards a society where that right can exist without anyone being able to find a reason to abuse it in the ways they clearly do now. The largest abusers of the notion of free speech is obviously the corporate propaganda machinery but i suppose we should crush the individual abusers first so that they might not infringe on the rights of big business. Thanks for picking sides early on and making my job so much easier.

Freedom of speech was high jacked many years ago to justify the actions of dissenters in our society no matter what they did or do.

Freedom of speech did not protect MLK or the black panthers or labour unions or socialist organizers earlier in the last century but they sure worked well for the corporate elites who are now richer than ever before! It's surprising that you can stand history on it's head and claim that it's the 'lone gunman' that abused free speech so badly.

Alex Jones is no different and he got what he wanted, more publicity for his money making movement.

He may very well have been looking for publicity but i guess we can claim the same for Ghandi and all those who consider themselves leaders in the struggle against the corporate elite or imperialist NWO types. I am still unsure how you will prove or argue that Alex is 'getting rich' as he seem perpetually exhausted and sleep deprived and hardly the type that seems to have time to enjoy luxuries and any ill gotten goods. Those movies are not that cheap to make and i can believe him when he says that he puts all the money back into his efforts to expose the NWO. If my donation ( and that reminds me that i have never yet made one despite wanting to) pays for his food instead of for a 30 minute segment of a new film then so be it. I would far rather have that than him doing less interviews with prominent people speaking on such interesting issues.

And I say it now but im sure you Democrats will forget come next Nov. When a democrat is in power what will your comments be when taxes go through the roof,

I am not American but even i can tell that the republicrats and the democans are two halves of the same inhuman face. To vote for either is a pick between wanting to get ripped off early in the day or instead by early afternoon.

Terrorist are in our backyard in mass,

Where? I mean who still believes that 9-11 were organized from a cave in Afghanistan? Why is the FBI not looking for OBL in relation to 9-11? Didn't they get the memo?

personal freedoms continue to be curtailed.

By BOTH parties with the democrats mostly consisting of the type of people that believe that the American public must be led down the road to wage and genral corporate slavery slower than most of the republican party believe they can get away with.

I guess you’ll just keep blaming the other guys.

What 'other' guys are there? Are 'the terrorist' running the US congress?

I haven’t met a Democrat yet that will take responsibility for their party’s mistakes, all you do is blame Bush and the non democrats for everything.

Bill Clinton seems a better president only because he lied far more effectively and efficiently while doing much the same horrendous things Bush is doing. Clinton had the side benefit of being actually elected by the American public but what does that really matter in a land where so many people still believe that elections are fair and just can't be staged?

[sarcasm]Oh no wait that’s right Bush and Cheney are going to stop the elections and take over as dictators. [/sarcasm] LOL

They already did, twice. I must admit that the sanction of Bush seniors elected officials did managed to fool the American public so it's probably not fair to technically call them dictators when most of their subjects are not even aware that they were installed and not elected.

So here’s the challenge When a new president is sworn in, I want everyone of you police state, elections will be stopped, anti government cry babies to come on here and apologize to all of us "sheeple" how you all got it wrong and we got it right.

Why would those who own and control the US government wish to destroy the charade by so blatantly and openly violating the rules that have served them so well thus far? What do they have to gain from keeping in office a person that can barely chew his food and speak English almost as badly as i do! That's just not a good candidate to sacrifice so much credibility over and he fully understands that he has played his part and will be richly rewarded for his criminal efforts.

I won’t hold my breath though because you will prob just shrug it off and say "oh they aren’t ready to do that yet". My sister’s baby’s aunt’s baby’s daddy told me that bushco was on to us and they couldn’t afford to play their hand yet crap. LOL

Oh eventually it might no longer serve them to hold fake elections but i don't think the time is right for that and they still have much reason to go on exploiting the credulity of the American public.

Continued

I think the only inside job about 9-11 is the government knew about it before hand and allowed it to happen in order to justify the Militaries itch for war,

I doubt the US military is 'itching for war' after the disaster that was the first gulf war and i think they were pretty much railroaded into this one.

as well as to jump start the economy and to put money in big corporate pocket.

At this stage you you can only exploit the myth that economies are 'jump started' by wars and that may well be a side benefit of their plans.

So yes there is a conspiracy, but not to the extent many have tried to pass as fact with nothing more than videos and hearsay testimony.

Anyway MY dollarTake care

Well Rice did admit that they KNEW planes would be hijacked but thought it would ONLY result in hostage situations. There are plenty of evidence that shows us that the official 9-11 story is entirely false ( beside the part about the WTC complex collapsing and that Americans dying) and we have plenty to go on beside hearsay and 'videos'.

Thanks for not really contributing and thus giving me plenty of issues to address.

Stellar

Originally posted by pavil
Pirate radio is the best you can do? Unlicensed broadcasts as a means of protest? Weak argument there. Sorry.

What form of protest is more effective than spreading the word without giving the police the excuse that you are blocking roads or being 'anarchist'?
Wouldn't it just be better for everyone if they could educate themselves this way instead of going to busy cities to hold conferences?

You haven't even given me one mainstream reference, how bout one example of some major organization being denied fully its right to protest?

Then find some yourself. In fact if you can't find seven your not trying. Frankly i don't see why i should have to come up with anything more than hundreds of small radio broadcasters being shut down and it sure appeals to me given the lack of additional research i will have to do. If you can show that shutting down free speech in this obvious way is not destroying dissent and protest then i suppose i might have to go find one of the tens of thousands of examples that is out there. Would you call the assasination of MLK as preventing protest? What about destroying dozens of major labour unions and thus crushing the legal rights to protest of millions? I mean what do you want from me really and why do you have such a hard time with accepting reality?

You honestly confuse me. First you claim that some are more deserving of rights and protection than others then you Decry the supposed same thing?

I want my rights as much as the next guy but my next meal does not depend on it ( or really any for the next few years) and i would rather fight for and support the rights of those who can't afford to be deprived of any more rights. Does that make it clearer?

Which is it? Is it only opinions that you feel are worthy that are worth protection?

In a way, yes as i don't believe corporations should be considered human beings under our laws. I think that is a abuse of the rights that WE as human beings fought for only to watch our achievements being hijacked once again for corporate profit.

No equal treatment under the law?

Not for everything and everyone while the laws were written the the powerful minority that needs them to exist among those who they are exploiting so horrendously. PEOPLE should have rights but then people should behave at least something like other human beings.

I do not support the other posters statement and opinions just his or her right to do so given this Site's "laws".

Which is all fine and good but then the laws should be applied to one and all and not reserved to attack those who have 'strange' views but make the same mistakes as the rest.

If you don't like a law, try to change it.

Sure and that's what human history has been all about.

If you can't get the law changed, then the majority of people probably just don't agree with you on what's right.

And that is where you miss the bus completely in presuming that the world in fact reflects what people want for themselves or others. Laws do NOT reflect the people's wishes and they are many instances the polar opposites of what people voted for after hearing their candidates claiming to be in favor of such programs.

It's such blatant and obvious misunderstandings of reality that can lead even highly intelligent informed people far astray of what a closer inspection of history and observed reality would have revealed.

What i find most astounding and discomforting is that anyone has the audacity to suggest or claim that the world as we know it is what the people want or the perfect image of what they are trying to achieve.

It's hard to sum up how large a misconception that really is but i will try if you insist.

Stellar

[edit on 27-9-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
Then find some yourself. In fact if you can't find seven your not trying.

Frankly i don't see why i should have to come up with anything more than hundreds of small radio broadcasters being shut down

They are not protesting in the context of the discussion we are having which was about Alex Jones I thought, not all of them are even protesting.

Would you call the assasination of MLK as preventing protest? What about destroying dozens of major labour unions and thus crushing the legal rights to protest of millions? I

No, assasinations are just that. How are the unions being destroyed by protests being totally banned? You are grouping things together that you find to be similar in your mind but aren't interconnected. Unions go on strike all the time, I'm not following you here. Union membership has declined for decades now, it is not the clamping down on all protests that has caused Union's decline.

Not for everything and everyone while the laws were written the the powerful minority that needs them to exist among those who they are exploiting so horrendously......Which is all fine and good but then the laws should be applied to one and all and not reserved to attack those who have 'strange' views but make the same mistakes as the rest.

How silly of me and the Founding Fathers of this nation to assume all citizens were entitled to the same rights under the law. you do realize you just contridicted yourself again right?

And that is where you miss the bus completely in presuming that the world in fact reflects what people want for themselves or others. Laws do NOT reflect the people's wishes

So the end of slavery, womens suffarage, the civil rights movement, Prohibition, affirmitive action, the current immigration and same sex marriage issues aren't reflections of the majority of the citizen's will at the time? Sorry, you are the one missing the point. Democracy is not perfect, but it sure beats most anyother form of government that mankind has errected. Which form of government do you thingk works best.

Let's both stop with the derailing of this thread, I feel bad when that occurs.

Hello, just a question, does someone who is being filmed in New York require a permit, or is a permit to film required? It would seem more likely that the second option is correct otherwise random bystanders may get on video and then be arrested for not having a permit. If the bylaw is on the books in some manner that is all encompassing such as; all persons associated during filming shall have a permitfine. Privacy issues alone almost justify some regulation as far as cameras are concerned. If the law is less specific, then it was a wrongful reason for arrest. Alex Jones was ticketed for use of a megaphone without a permit in the end... right?

Originally posted by pavil
They are not protesting in the context of the discussion we are having which was about Alex Jones I thought, not all of them are even protesting.

What do you mean they are not protesting in the context of this discussion? How is the right to protest by means of a local community radio station NOT 'in' context?

No, assasinations are just that.

The government and corporate elite reaching down to make sure that certain leaders can never again be the focal points for protest?

How are the unions being destroyed by protests being totally banned?

They can not take to the streets to TELL people why they are striking or doing whatever it is they are doing? Since the media is already controlled being able to keep people off the street effectively blocks all avenues for protest thus preventing them from telling their side of the story.

You are grouping things together that you find to be similar in your mind but aren't interconnected.

And you are trying to separate interconnected facts that will destroy your ignorant notion that protesters can protest whenever they like by simply applying for permits! It's strange to see such mental gymnastics for the sake of trying to make protest seem 'easy' to do with no state efforts to suppress it!

Unions go on strike all the time, I'm not following you here.

Unions do not go on strike all the time as they lack the power and organization to do so due to state suppression and the laws that prevents them from protesting and getting their ideas to the rest of society.

Union membership has declined for decades now, it is not the clamping down on all protests that has caused Union's decline.

The mind of the well indoctrinated commissar never sees connections where they clearly are.... It's just FASCINATING how you will argue that protest is no problem yet admit that Unions are simply declining of their own volition while wages stagnates and people get poorer? You must not know that strong unions , and legal rights to organized, are in direct relation to the living conditions people have in their various countries?

How silly of me and the Founding Fathers of this nation to assume all citizens were entitled to the same rights under the law. you do realize you just contridicted yourself again right?

They NEVER assumed or presumed this and the citizens of the day had to fight to gain those rights. You may wish to argue or think that those rich elites ,who abuse power to destroy others, are unable to fend for themselves but i know better and will always argue that those with least power should have most legal protections.

So the end of slavery, womens suffarage, the civil rights movement, Prohibition, affirmitive action, the current immigration and same sex marriage issues aren't reflections of the majority of the citizen's will at the time?

It does and you seem to forget that these rights were gained by illegal protest and worse with our various governments normally doing their best to grant such rights. Few if any good things came to the people of this world and the things they managed to gain were torn from the hands of those in control just as whatever evil remains is being actively protected by the same people who wish to shut up Alex Jones for daring to say what he wishes.

Sorry, you are the one missing the point. Democracy is not perfect, but it sure beats most anyother form of government that mankind has errected.

Democracy is clearly not perfect but since American system have more Democratic forums than actual outcomes it's pretty obvious that ACTUAL democracy would be far better than the current charade.

Which form of government do you thingk works best.

Democracy that is actually democractic?

Let's both stop with the derailing of this thread, I feel bad when that occurs.

What you should be feeling bad about is your ignorance and defense of the notion that protesting against authority is NEVER easy and almost always against the laws that were invented to protect power.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

What do you mean they are not protesting in the context of this discussion? How is the right to protest by means of a local community radio station NOT 'in' context?

Most of the pirate radio stations aren't actually protesting and NONE were protesting in a NY street.

They can not take to the streets to TELL people why they are striking or doing whatever it is they are doing? Since the media is already controlled being able to keep people off the street effectively blocks all avenues for protest thus preventing them from telling their side of the story.

Unions do get their message out. There are limits on picket lines as they have had problems in the past on both sides. You don't seriously contend that ALL AVENUES for protest by the Unions are blocked and that Unions don't get their message out do you?

And you are trying to separate interconnected facts that will destroy your ignorant notion that protesters can protest whenever they like by simply applying for permits! It's strange to see such mental gymnastics for the sake of trying to make protest seem 'easy' to do with no state efforts to suppress it!

Pirate radio stations and Unions right to strike are not evidence of a denial of the complete right of protest and those two are not interconnected when it comes down to it. Yes there are laws and regulations that limit when and more often, where peaceful protests can take place. You seem to take the more anarchical approach of letting protesters do whatever they want whenever they want. I disagree with that approach.

Unions do not go on strike all the time as they lack the power and organization to do so due to state suppression and the laws that prevents them from protesting and getting their ideas to the rest of society.

They do go on strike all the time, as evidence by the GM strike, one of the largest Unions in the country. They most definitely have gotten their ideas of what the Union wants out to the public. They have not had riot hoses, dogs and thugs turned on them, stop making it sound so.

The mind of the well indoctrinated commissar never sees connections where they clearly are.... It's just FASCINATING how you will argue that protest is no problem yet admit that Unions are simply declining of their own volition while wages stagnates and people get poorer? You must not know that strong unions , and legal rights to organized, are in direct relation to the living conditions people have in their various countries?

Commissar? cute.
Unions have been in decline in the US for quite some time and the reason is NOT their lack of an ability to protest. Unions and Businesses in the US have not adapted well to the Global marketplace. We are very productive but as a whole still can not compete on a even playing field when it comes to emerging industrial countries and wages. Perhaps your drive would be better spent on trying to unionize China and India. Just a thought. To blame the decline of U.S. Unions on the Unions lack of protest is horribly incorrect. There are many other more important factors.

They NEVER assumed or presumed this and the citizens of the day had to fight to gain those rights.

They most assuredly did. Majority rule AND minority rights are but two examples of many procedures and rights our Founding Fathers included in our form of government to insure that all are treated equally and fairly and have ways to change laws they feel are unjust. You seem to imply that the "haves" are not entitled to the same protection as the "have not's". I agree that there should be protections in place for the "have not's" but not at the expense of equal rights for all.

It does and you seem to forget that these rights were gained by illegal protest and worse with our various governments normally doing their best to grant such rights.

No most of those have/are being debated/fought for in the context of legal protests and challenges. The systems we have in place do seem to work for the most part.

Democracy is clearly not perfect but since American system have more Democratic forums than actual outcomes it's pretty obvious that ACTUAL democracy would be far better than the current charade. .....
Democracy that is actually democratic?

Please elaborate. I take it you do not like representative democracy in the form as it is in the U.S. I sense that you thing that a minority opinion should hold as much water as the majority opinion? Would those be a fair statements?

What you should be feeling bad about is your ignorance and defense of the notion that protesting against authority is NEVER easy and almost always against the laws that were invented to protect power.

There are ample example of peaceful protests changing the outcome of society. That doesn't always mean that there aren't violent confrontations during some of the protests, there certainly are. There are procedures, laws, regulations ect in place in our form of government to change policy, when those are followed, the desired result occurs, given enough of the people are behind it.

You once made a comment in reference to Pre WWII Germany. Since you are a student of it you would do well to remember that those who were in power at the time, a relative minority of even the government, managed to exert their will on the entire populace by methods that basically trampled the systems that were in place at the time. If you disregard all the political systems you have in place for changing laws, policies ect, you run the risk of having power being seized and you having no rights. You may not agree with the Patriot Act and other legistlation but they were voted on by Represenatives you hopefully elected. You seem to think that power is being seized right now and is occurring in the US , I submit to you that come Jan. 2009 we will have a new President, new House of Representatives and newly elected Senators. Our systems may not be perfect but they do work rather well.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by pavil]

[edit on 5-10-2007 by pavil]

The police are not your friends they have thier own borgata and they are the lowly button men on the shakedown. lets be real already....they only want your money just like every other borgata!!

I think if you stand on a soap box and every one lines up so as
not to block pedestrian walk ways and block traffic, such a meeting
might be allowed.

Perhaps no megaphone this time.

A moving line to allow a few minuets close to the speaker.

If cameras are rolling then conspiracy theories will be the celebrity of
The East Coast.

Just keep on getting your face in the news until 9/11 is cleaned up.

Just like Britney, 9/11 will get rehab.

Originally posted by pavil
Most of the pirate radio stations aren't actually protesting and NONE were protesting in a NY street.

So illegally operating their stations and reopening then even more illegally re-opening them when they are shut down ( half were shut but even more started) is NOT protesting? Why do you wish to separate the forms of protest when they are clearly related? Why do people need clearly illegal community radio stations when they could simply hold protests and other types of gatherings?

Unions do get their message out. There are limits on picket lines as they have had problems in the past on both sides. You don't seriously contend that ALL AVENUES for protest by the Unions are blocked and that Unions don't get their message out do you?

Why else are Unions declining in tandem with wages all over the US? Why are the countries with the strongest unions also those with the most prosperous societies? Why were US unions strongest when most labour gains were made?

Pirate radio stations and Unions right to strike are not evidence of a denial of the complete right of protest and those two are not interconnected when it comes down to it

Having a rights does not mean you will be granted opportunities to indulge in them and that might best explain why so many Unions have broken and why the US is probably now the most unorganized labour force in the industrialized west. Britain might be slightly better or worse but i think that goes a long ways towards proving my point.

. Yes there are laws and regulations that limit when and more often, where peaceful protests can take place. You seem to take the more anarchical approach of letting protesters do whatever they want whenever they want. I disagree with that approach.

I do not take the approach that people should be allowed to do ANYTHING and why would i given the fact that Unions in more civilized Western countries can gain concessions for their workers without having to resort to violence or shutting down their nations....

They do go on strike all the time, as evidence by the GM strike, one of the largest Unions in the country.

And what was GM doing to it's workforce for them to have taken the chance to actual strike? Do you wish to provide us with some context as to why those particular workers were willing to risk so much?

They most definitely have gotten their ideas of what the Union wants out to the public. They have not had riot hoses, dogs and thugs turned on them, stop making it sound so.

So you mean to suggest that having the dogs/thugs and riots hoses turned on people is still something that should be happening in a civilized state? Is not getting seriously injured or thrown into jail the standard by which a 'successful protest' should be measured in a civilized society? Why are these things not happening in actual civilized unionized societies?

Commissar? cute.

It's a job i suppose...

Unions have been in decline in the US for quite some time and the reason is NOT their lack of an ability to protest.

And the fact that Union growth in the countries where wages are increasing is simply not related. It's fascinating how relationships will be ignored when they do not fit the agenda...

Unions and Businesses in the US have not adapted well to the Global marketplace. We are very productive but as a whole still can not compete on a even playing field when it comes to emerging industrial countries and wages.

US workers are not in fact very productive , especially not when their stagnating or declining wages are considered, and that's why the US can not even compete with Norway and Sweden when it comes to labour productivity.

Perhaps your drive would be better spent on trying to unionize China and India. Just a thought. To blame the decline of U.S. Unions on the Unions lack of protest is horribly incorrect. There are many other more important factors.

People organize themselves given a chance to do so and it takes consistent and overwhelming intervention to keep Unions from forming or growing stronger. The fact that US unions have so steeply declined since the 60's and 70s ( as i recall) speaks volumes as to the states intervention and the resulting stagnation and decline of US wages.

They most assuredly did. Majority rule AND minority rights are but two examples of many procedures and rights our Founding Fathers included in our form of government to insure that all are treated equally and fairly and have ways to change laws they feel are unjust.

They only included the bill of rights ( without which all the other guarantees are entirely empty) due to public pressure knowing that they needed something with which to gain acceptance for THEIR constitution. Do not be fooled into presuming that American citizens gained their rights due to the generosity of the few wealthy individuals that drew up the constitution.

You seem to imply that the "haves" are not entitled to the same protection as the "have not's".

I am arguing that we would have a chance if they did not have so many more rights and protections than the have not's.

I agree that there should be protections in place for the "have not's" but not at the expense of equal rights for all.

You do not grow wealthy by having equal rights but instead do so by breaking the law and presuming for yourself , by various means, far more rights and protections than the majority you seek to control.

No most of those have/are being debated/fought for in the context of legal protests and challenges. The systems we have in place do seem to work for the most part.

I just don't know what history you read for you to have formed the impression that US citizens gained their rights rights by doing 'legal' protest and the like. It's just fascinating how people can believe something like that about the US when it's true for no other society on Earth today or in modern history. Truly a land of a myths...

Please elaborate. I take it you do not like representative democracy in the form as it is in the U.S.

It's not representative ( winner takes all is not representative) so why should anyone like it? How many actual democracies have similar systems and why do those countries with the higher living standards have representative type governments where even small parties can gain seats and thus power?

I sense that you thing that a minority opinion should hold as much water as the majority opinion? Would those be a fair statements?

I think the majority opinion should be listened to and that's why it's very hard to call what is currently happening in the US representative or democratic. Do you really wish to defend the idea that what is taking place in the US is what people want and more specifically what they voted for?

There are ample example of peaceful protests changing the outcome of society.

Where, when and how many armed and illegal struggles set the groundwork or continued while some sections organized and protested peacefully?

That doesn't always mean that there aren't violent confrontations during some of the protests, there certainly are.

Illegal , and sometimes violent when the state intervenes, protest are the norm for protecting of current liberties or future progress and i am surprised that someone will argue that we are here due to a largely peaceful struggle against tyranny, kings and worse. Truly fascinating.

There are procedures, laws, regulations ect in place in our form of government to change policy, when those are followed, the desired result occurs, given enough of the people are behind it.

Those procedures, laws and regulations , and more representative governments largely came about by illegal and sometimes violent struggle against oppression so you are once again putting the cart before the horse and showing that you have absolutely no understanding or knowledge of history. Sure we can bring about great changes with far more peaceful ( but still mostly illegal) protest today but those are rights and circumstances that did not come about by accident or always acting within the law.

You once made a comment in reference to Pre WWII Germany. Since you are a student of it you would do well to remember that those who were in power at the time, a relative minority of even the government, managed to exert their will on the entire populace by methods that basically trampled the systems that were in place at the time.

Continued

Actually Hitler managed to stay within 'the law' ( obviously not set up to defend the peoples more general interest) for quite a long time and were in the end allowed to break them by the same Western European leaders ( to say nothing of Wall Street complicity in the rearmament of Germany) that could have at any time until 1937-38 intervened to bring down his government without probably shedding much blood. The German generals were almost openly against him but when they tried to gain western backing for overthrowing him they were given a cold should directly leading to the second world war.

What happened in Germany did not come about because one small minority in one country assumed power but because many other minorities in many other countries aided them directly in preparing their country for a struggle against 'communist' Russia. When Hitler turned the tables on them by first attacking Western Europe they were pretty surprised and even after that they still allowed their corporations to trade with Germany still hoping for the destruction of the Soviet Union before finally intervening to crush Germany.

If you disregard all the political systems you have in place for changing laws, policies ect, you run the risk of having power being seized and you having no rights.

Bush have already stolen two American elections so why should the American citizens stick to the laws their selected leaders breaks in such obvious ways? Why should the common people who always have most to lose respect the remnants of those oppressive rules and regulations that still exists to keep them from gaining control over the machinery of their government and thus their own destinies?

You may not agree with the Patriot Act and other legistlation but they were voted on by Represenatives you hopefully elected.

And as i understand not many were still there and non read the entire thing before voting for it. Those people do not often represent the people as they were for the most part not selected, and sometimes not even elected, by the people.

You seem to think that power is being seized right now and is occurring in the US , I submit to you that come Jan. 2009 we will have a new President, new House of Representatives and newly elected Senators.

That will probably still hold a majority large enough to continue running the United States into the ground in the same way as the last seven or eight administrations before them.

Our systems may not be perfect but they do work rather well.

As only a well indoctrinated or very badly informed individual could in my opinion believe.

Stellar

[edit on 26-10-2007 by StellarX]