It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
As fifty young music fans stood around watching a DJ spin on stage, Buffalo Police filed onto private property and threatened the crowd to disband or pay the consequences. Despite the fact that the proper permits had been filed with City Hall, that would allow the music to go on until 10pm, Buffalo Police would not listen to reason, only resorting to ‘police state’ tactics as the young music fans looked on in bewilderment .
One of the reasons that The Yard was chosen for the event was that it is widely known that the bandshell at LaSalle Park is next to impossible to book unless you have an ‘in’ with The City. So that means that the only other alternative when it comes to holding a concert at a permanent outdoor music festival is The Yard. The Yard is not in a residential neighborhood. Nor is it in a commercial neighborhood. It’s located in an abandoned industrial area surrounded by nothing and no one. Maybe sometime in the future this might be inhabited by college students, but that’s just not the case at this point in time. So how do the police claim that there was a noise complaint, especially since the music could not be heard until you turned the corner of the building and actually saw the stage?
“There were numerous noise complaints from neighbors,” said Michael J. DeGeorge, Buffalo police spokesman. “Many of these complaints went to Council Member Joseph Golombek’s house Saturday afternoon and evening.”
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech...
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes.... This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights.
The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
After exercising increasing scrutiny of laws that infringed upon free speech, the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established the doctrine that the government may restrain only speech that is likely to incite imminent unlawful action. The First Amendment therefore protects even speech that calls for overthrow of the government or lawless action.
The government may, however, impose reasonable limitations upon the time, place, and manner in which speech is exercised in order to protect public order and the smooth functioning of public administration. In imposing such restrictions, however, the state may not discriminate on the basis of the content of speech since such limitations would permit the state to favor one type of speech over another. www.answers.com...
Originally posted by eNumbra
I always wonder why police get the blame, when they are only the enforcers of the law.
Originally posted by eNumbra
reply to post by Maxmars
Except that in some cases they are simply the claws on the fingers.
Not all police officers are constitutional law scholars and in some cases the law is indeed NOT on the side of the "oppressed masses". To call this instance a police-state action with no research other than an Alex Jones article is the same terrible journalism that is ruining the country in the first place.
Blame those who made the laws, blame those who sign the checks and give the officers their orders. In this case, blame those who may or may not have been using this to further their own political agendas.
Who here honestly blames the foot soldiers for the Nazi crimes during World War 2? And although many would readily draw the parallel, few of those same would accept that our police are in the same position.
Originally posted by Maxmars
I agree that some are not in a position to modify their orders. But you must agree that there are some who are.
Not all those who act in the name of the law, do so in a manner reflecting responsibility to the people whose interests they are duty-bound to serve; instead they choose to serve interests of their own choosing, for their own reasons.
Logic dictates that fact was not 'invisible' or 'unknowable'. The police responsible either acted in error or were simply belligerently exercising their authority on behalf of some other agenda, so to speak.