Originally posted by photobug
I've been watching some of the videos from Pittsburgh. The common element that the police use is "the chief of police has determined that this is an unlawful assembly". I have a few questions regarding this.....

1. since when is it the chief of polices job to determine what is an unlawful assembly?

Since the NWO took over since 9-11. Everything is unlawful assembly.

2. How can the chief of police arbitrarily decide this as it goes against the constitution.

Cause he da man.

3. How can a group protest legally?

You can't...next question?

4. If the right to protest in granted by our constitution how then can a person or laws be passed that determine what is and what is not an unlawful assembly.

No, you are the servants of TPTB...shut up slave and lick dem boots good.

5. If the chief of police determines a protest is unlawful what are the legal grounds or guidelines he is using to determine this?

His right to declare a Police State.

Your input please. If people are going to protest then we must be aware of the laws, how to protest within our rights.

Thanks

[edit on 26-9-2009 by photobug]

Originally posted by 12.21.12
Just get a permit.

A little trick from the entertainment industry. They usually get permits to shoot. Same idea, just get a city permit and you can do what you want.

It's not the same idea. The 'permit' is the Constitution of the United States. The people have no need for any other permit, or permission.

Originally posted by Tranewreck17
The whole point is to disrupt the normal way of life. ....

Protesting is about getting in the middle of the road and disrupting everyones day to day life in order to force action.

If you have that mindset then why the heck are you crying when you get bullied by police??

If you disrupt, then expect to get disrupted by police. It's simple to understand.

Protesting is not about disrupting, that is a false idea/tactic. Disrupting actually ensures that your protest is cut short, effectively killing your own protest. That is counter productive and moronic.

Originally posted by Tranewreck17
Do you think the civil rights movement would have been successful if people stayed on the sidewalk out of peoples way? NO!!

I think you need to read your history better. The Civil Rights protests had little to no effect on the actual movement. The real progress was made outside of protesting.

Originally posted by Tranewreck17
People would have walked past them talking about how annoying they are and gone right back to their lives.

How is that different from disruptive protesting?

People will see the protest, and then see the annoying people cry when they get broken up by police, then they will go right back to their lives.

Originally posted by Tranewreck17
The only way people will pay attention to you is if you make it impossible for them to not pay attention.

I think the above comment is very ignorant. Forcing normal people to "pay attention" is just as effective as a "pop-up ad" on your computer. You are not doing anything to help the protest, or get the word out, you are just being annoying.

Being inviting and peacefully handing out fliers is more effective than being loud, obnoxious, and yelling the words of a flier through a megaphone, while stopping traffic.

I think maybe you people need to understand what the word protest means. Some reason you think protest means "disrupt".

Originally posted by andrewh7
Your opinion on the effectiveness of a street protest is utterly irrelevant.

Your opinion about protesting is utterly irrelevant as well.

Originally posted by andrewh7
Protests on public property are legally protected.

I just got finished posting the exact words from the Constitution. It is only legal to peacefully assemble. The definition of "PEACFUL" is not declared in the Constitution, but is elsewhere.

You DO NOT have the legal right to obstruct traffic, and annoy people who are not protesting.

Originally posted by andrewh7
There is a big difference between playing a radio at full volume at 4am during a party and chanting a protest slogan while walking down the street in the middle of the day.

Yes there is a big difference. Playing a radio at full volume is not obstructing traffic in the middle of the street in the middle of the day!

Originally posted by andrewh7
It's nice that you are only annoyed by people exercising their constitutional rights. Me - not so much. That's why I went to law school and became a licensed attorney in the State of Michigan. I believe in the law and enforcing it as it was written, equally to all, regardless of their message.

I guess they don't teach common sense in law school.

Maybe you should read the fine words in the constitution. Does it say you can block traffic? How is that peaceful? It's not.

Originally posted by andrewh7
Perhaps one day you'll find a cause that will actually compel to leave your couch.

That's a totally predictable insult. Thanks for trying to sneak that in.

Perhaps you will learn some common sense and instead of leaving your couch and moronically protesting to NOBODY in the middle of the street then getting beat up by police and end up crying about it on a forum, you will leave your couch and try to get a real position in politics to make some real changes.

Originally posted by andrewh7
If that times comes, you'll appreciate that you have the right to speak in a public forum.

If that time comes, I wont be stupid enough to protest in the middle of the street illegally obstructing traffic, or disturbing people who have a different opinion. I will actually do things that are more effective.

Originally posted by andrewh7
You can't make people listen but you can sure as hell try. Pittsburgh's police were attacking peaceful individuals, many of whom were not even involved in protesting. Regardless of what you think of a protester's message or the effectiveness of their argument, they have a right to be there. Another country's streets may be quieter - consider moving.

The police need to treat everyone equal. If there are people illegally blocking traffic and disturbing the peace in an area, they will tell everyone to leave the area even if they have a legit reason to be there.

That way, protesters can't just lie and say "oh i live here, oh I wasn't protesting i work in this area", or "oh i was just walking through". Because of that, innocent people will also be forced to leave. That is another reason why most protests are NOT peaceful, because you ruin "it" for everyone else.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by 0neKnows]

It's likely that a certain percent of the "protesters" are infiltrators who's job is to cultivate the rationals necessary for the public to root for the crack down. IE they start the violence in order to reinforce the idea that the police are their necessary protectors. Similar to the WTO in Seattle, most people I new just loved to see the policy enforcers stop freedom of speech because they where either sure it was a social embarrassment for them and Seattle or they felt the crowds where a personal threat to "social order".

Everyone is learning something new this week:

Protests Don't Work.

Force Works. Pain works.

Originally posted by SpacePunk

Originally posted by 12.21.12
Just get a permit.

A little trick from the entertainment industry. They usually get permits to shoot. Same idea, just get a city permit and you can do what you want.

It's not the same idea. The 'permit' is the Constitution of the United States. The people have no need for any other permit, or permission.

I agree that the police acted inappropriately. However, point of fact - The US Supreme Court has held that even in a public forum, the government may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that are content-neutral, leave open ample, alternative ways for expression and are narrowly tailored. This means that city officials could limit protests to certain hours of the day and perhaps certain locations. Again, the key terms are “reasonable” and “content-neutral.”

Time, place and manner — Considerations that could act as restrictions on what would ordinarily be First Amendment-protected expression. Such restrictions do not target speech based on content, and in order to stand up in court, they must be applied in a content-neutral manner. For example, people have the right to march in protest, but not with noisy bullhorns at 4 a.m. in a residential neighborhood.

Originally posted by andrewh7
[ For example, people have the right to march in protest, but not with noisy bullhorns at 4 a.m. in a residential neighborhood.

There are laws that cover that situation under noise ordinances. So-called municipal permits aren't necessary.

A permit! A permit!



Thomas Jefferson would kill the men oppressing his people. He'd muster the militia and work his way through the stormtroopers with blades and bullets. He would have supported the shedding of their blood.



A permit!

Originally posted by 12.21.12

But then again what do protests ever accomplish anyways?

Americans don't know how to protest...

They think protesting means making signs and walking around.

Originally posted by 12.21.12

If you are going to defend the constitution, do it legally. Otherwise your service is not wanted.

Okay Internet person....

The laws are there to prevent us from exercising our Rights and are also there to protect the paramilitaries who infringe on those rights.

"Legally"...

The police don't have to obey the supreme Law of the Land anymore according to new legislation (which is illegal).

Their Constitutional infractions have been legalized ( - just ignore the fact that the laws which do this are Illegal according the Law of the Land)



You are a jokester!




[edit on 27-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

As far as protesting I look to JFKs wise words in saying that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." I've never said people should be anarchists or use drugs. I'm against all the legal ways the government tries to make protest as ineffective as possible. I'm also against cornering students that are innocent bystanders and throwing tear gas at them. I'm also against the military throwing citizens into unmarked cars regardless of the offense. If someone is doing something illegal, then by all means have a cop put him in the back of his car. People dressed in camo throwing people in unmarked cars is not ok with me. Forcing people to get permits and only letting them protest as long as its convenient for everyone else sounds unbelievably against the foundations of this nation. I don't understand how you could think otherwise.

Originally posted by Tranewreck17
I'm also against cornering students that are innocent bystanders and throwing tear gas at them.

That's a side-effect of having people disturbing peace that look like students, the police has no real way of knowing if someone that looks like a student and is mixed with other students is not the protester that was throwing stones to the police some minutes ago.

I'm also against the military throwing citizens into unmarked cars regardless of the offense.

The only problem I see with that video is that we have no way of knowing if he was a civilian, although the unmarked car doesn't look normal in any way.

---

One thing that I don't really understand: the US constitution, apparently, only states that there will be no laws limiting the freedom of assembly and speech, it doesn't state that people have those rights in any circumstance.

The Portuguese constitution says it explicitly, so I don't know if that difference has any effect in the law and/or in the ways the law is applied, but to me they do not mean exactly the same thing.

From a Portuguese point of view, the US constitution grants very little rights specifically, but the Portuguese constitution was re-made after the revolution that ended 48 years of dictatorship, so it's only natural that it has things worded in a different way, we know exactly how a dictatorship works.

What I said on my first post is not correct, the permit from the "Governo Civil" is not needed, but I have known several cases in which they asked for the permit.

Just as a curiosity, here are some of the relevant (I think) paragraphs of the Portuguese constitution.

Article 37.
Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his thoughts in words, images or by other means, and the right to inform, to get information and to be informed without hindrance or discrimination.
2. The exercise of these rights can not be prevented or restricted by any type or form of censorship.
3. Offences committed in the exercise of these rights are subject to general principles of criminal or administrative social offence, and their appraisal respectively of the competence of courts or an independent administrative body under the law.
4. To all natural or legal persons is assured under conditions of equality and efficiency, the right of reply and rectification and the right to compensation for damage.

Article 45.
Right of assembly and demonstration

1. Citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without weapons, even in public places, without any authorization.
2. Every citizen is granted the right to demonstrate.

We don't need no stinking permits.