New rules give protesters more leeway at Republican convention

The City of Cleveland and the ACLU came to agree on terms of a specific protest zone for the Republican Convention next month.

They took this to a Judge and got it approved.

Who was fighting for what I do not know.

But it looks like those "1st Amendment" zones are back.

Something about a smaller zone and longer times.

This Yahoo article suggests it is an advantage for protesters.

Maybe Maybe Not.

Maybe more protesters show up now and we get massive police actions?

Micro-managing the 1st Amendment can be difficult.

New rules give protesters more leeway at Republican convention

A federal judge on Wednesday authorized a new plan allowing protesters at next month's Republican National Convention in Cleveland to demonstrate in an area that will be readily visible to convention goers.

The new plan, approved by U.S. District Judge Dan Aaron Polster, also cuts in half the size of an "event zone" where demonstrations and mobility will be limited and gives protesters more time to demonstrate.

The agreement between the city of Cleveland and the American Civil Liberties Union resolves weeks of wrangling over the rules for what are expected to be lively protests when Donald Trump is due to become the Republican Party's official nominee for president at the July 18-21 convention.

Most of the protesters will be republicans in the convention hall trying to find a way to salvage the GOP from Donald.

a reply to: xuenchen

Just so rhose "lively protesters" know sucker punches will be on the receiving end this go around...and into the furure thru November election.

We'll scare you straight...

a reply to: xuenchen

Once you agree to zones for free speech, then it stops being free speech and instead, becomes allowable speech.

This is authoritarian bull####!

Protest 'zones', kinda amuzing/. The whole idea behind protest is supposed to allow demonstrations and even civil disobedience blossom Whanever, spontaneously. And if it breaks a few windows, big deal. We're breaking whole countries.

These zones must have sprung from Occupy WallStreet. When they showed up to occupy the steps of Wall Street, the police said, we can't let you block the steps, but we will let you go down the street and occupy the Park. So Occupy Wall Street became "Occupy the Park".

Still chuckling lol, people go WTH, they are occupying the park? Whats that all about?

The protest against the direction this country is taken has been postponed, heres a nice little approved group of people down the street shouting something,

Live-- "Can you make that out, Bill what are they shouting?"

I don't know Kathy, I can't hear them, they're too far away . Back to you in the news studio."

Cut to commercial...

a reply to: DBCowboy

I disagree. If it was just protesting, it would be 1st amendment rights. However, now the protestors have extended free speech into disruptive and criminal acts.

I don't see it as a prevention of free speech, but rather prevention of crime and violence.

I remember free speech zones back when Bush 2 was in office. Nothing new.

a reply to: gator2001

I was disgusted by the free speech zones when Bush was in office.

As for the current protestors? I don't believe in pre-judging. if they are simply protesting, then they have that right to freely assemble.

if they turn violent? Taze, rubber bullets, gas them, beat them with heavy sticks. I have no patience for violent criminal thugs.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I agree with you in theory, however, come on...

Based on the protests that have happened already, what do you think is going to happen at the convention on a national and world stage?

It isn't a stretch to see that in 2 + x = 4, x = 2

I only mentioned the Bush zones to say this isn't a new concept that the title states.

a reply to: gator2001

We can't start infringing on rights just because some idiots did idiotic things before.

it's like banning firearms from everyone simply because some idiots used them in a crime.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: gator2001

We can't start infringing on rights just because some idiots did idiotic things before.

it's like banning firearms from everyone simply because some idiots used them in a crime.

How and why then, did laws become laws? Did the lawmakers sit and think of what might possibly happen or did someone do something stupid to justify creating the law?

a reply to: gator2001

Laws that infringe on the rights and freedoms of Americans are unconstitutional.

There are no exceptions.

a reply to: gator2001

We have laws against people doing violent, destructive and criminal acts already though.

We also have laws protecting people's right to protest.

We don't need new laws for that stuff. We just need to enforce the ones we have.

We need to enforce them correctly also. Bust the Criminals and PROTECT the PROTESTORS. No lumping them all into one group out of laziness or lack of proper planning.

a reply to: DBCowboy

How is having a zone infringing on anyone's rights, though? And what about the rights of those attending an event that is solely for them?

Doesn't the organizers and authorities have an obligation to protect those? From people who are there only to cause disruption and potentially cause much violence?

originally posted by: gator2001
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is having a zone infringing on anyone's rights, though? And what about the rights of those attending an event that is solely for them?

You cannot "freely assemble" if you are being placed in a area designated by government.

Doesn't the organizers and authorities have an obligation to protect those? From people who are there only to cause disruption and potentially cause much violence?

Absolutely. Arrest the ones causing violence and the ones rioting. Throw them in jail. Maybe then, they'll stop doing the stupid stuff that they do.

a reply to: mOjOm

Like I said, I agree with the theory and wish that theory would remain true.

I firmly agree that rubber bullets and tear gas and whatever else should be used against violent disruptors. They would get what they deserve.

Maybe, just maybe some prevention tactics are in order at this time is all I am saying. I imagine some of the disruptors that will show up have very harmful intentions by going there.

a reply to: gator2001

If you protest in the venue itself you'll be removed. If you start violence against anyone at any time you'll be removed and arrested. Nothing has changed there.

But you can't start arresting people ahead of time because you think they could "potentially" do something.

a reply to: gator2001

Nobody said it's going to be easy. But that's the breakdown of how it is.

The problem is that you get 1000 protestors of which 10 are causing trouble and all 1000 are then fired upon.

That also means the easiest way to sabotage the protest against you is to just hire a handful of stooges to cause trouble and get them all removed.

I'm not sure how to best solve that problem. But I'm sure there must be some better solution than militarized police swat teams gassing and arresting hundreds or thousands of people for doing nothing more than yelling and caring signs.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: gator2001
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is having a zone infringing on anyone's rights, though? And what about the rights of those attending an event that is solely for them?

You cannot "freely assemble" if you are being placed in a area designated by government.

Doesn't the organizers and authorities have an obligation to protect those? From people who are there only to cause disruption and potentially cause much violence?

Absolutely. Arrest the ones causing violence and the ones rioting. Throw them in jail. Maybe then, they'll stop doing the stupid stuff that they do.

Can you freely assemble inside Area 51? The White House? How about in national parks where a sign says to not go past that point?

It's the same thing with free speech. You can say what you want, except certain things or you might be prosecuted or fired or whatever.

a reply to: mOjOm

Time Cop arrests people ahead of time. Argument closed. End thread.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: gator2001

If you protest in the venue itself you'll be removed. If you start violence against anyone at any time you'll be removed and arrested. Nothing has changed there.

But you can't start arresting people ahead of time because you think they could "potentially" do something.

Whoa, there. I never said arrest before time. I am just saying keep the two sides separated. What is the first tactic to diffuse a potential situation? Separation.