>> ^Fletch:

Yes, please read, more carefully this time.
Amendment I
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.


Since you're being sarcastic, the premise of this post is based on the assumption that your grievance with me is that you support this destruction of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (as I would put it; you feel however you want) and you recognize that I don't.

If you're attempting to imply in a passive-aggressive fashion that I'm somehow encroaching on your first amendment rights to discuss breaking our first amendment rights, I'm not. I recognize your right to continue debating how you can go about (in this case literally) dismantling the first amendment, but you're still placing higher priority to the freedoms that you want than the freedoms of others.

I find it especially telling how you've used bold emphasis to illustrate the portion you have deemed important because you think it represents your viewpoint while you completely ignore the standard typeface portion. Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed.

.. and in the post before this you told someone to shut up. Need I even point out the hypocrisy?

Yes, please read, more carefully this time.

Amendment I

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.

>> ^Truckchase:

I still can't believe this is a topic of discussion. Read:
Amendment I
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.
Nothing more to discuss here folks, move on.

I still can't believe this is a topic of discussion. Read:

Amendment I

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.

Nothing more to discuss here folks, move on.

Learn how law works there sparky before you go spouting off.

The Supreme Court has time and time again ruled that law enforcement can put time & place restrictions on protests and exercise of free speech. Hence the Rovian Free Speech Pens and other nonsense.

In fact, I am surprised Philly doesn't have a law about showing ID when in front of a federal bldg or other "high value" locations. I thought it was a federal law, but it might be a state law.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Protest permit?
"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." Requiring a permit to protest is a de facto law against protests. The first amendment has already been applied to the states thus trumping any local laws by federal precedent. How common are these protest ordinances?

Protest permit?

"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." Requiring a permit to protest is a de facto law against protests. The first amendment has already been applied to the states thus trumping any local laws by federal precedent. How common are these protest ordinances?

The text of the letter Steele refused to sign on to reads as follows:

As leaders of our respective national parties, we want to speak to all Americans about the importance of conducting our political debates in a manner and tone that respects our political system and demonstrates to the world the strength of our democracy.

We have a system of government that allows the great issues of our day to be resolved peacefully and civilly and that serves as a beacon of hope to those around the world who yearn for political freedom, political stability, and governing without the threat of violence.

We have a system that allows people to express approval of their government or change the party in power peaceably through the ballot box.

Our Constitution affords Americans the right to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly, we have different positions on the merits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, we together call on elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry. We also call on all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^rougy:
I have to disagree about the "both sides" thing, hombre.
The Japanese fishing industry is raping the ocean and needs to be stopped.
Whaling is probably the most critical aspect of their crimes, but not the only one.

No doubt, but I am not picking sides on their actions only the way they deal with it.
More often than not most of the conflicts I have solved on my own have been peaceable, but those conflicts didn't deal with monetary incentive.
When there is money to be gained and someone wants to stop it for the right reasons then people will get hurt. Right is also subjective and relative. Your version of right, and mine may be two completely different things. The latter sentence is just a figure of speech, I do think the Japanese are wrong, but I also think the Sea Sheppard crew are playing with fire.
I have some other opinions about monetary incentive, bodily harm, and the idea of swift pacification. But I fear repercussion for leaving a record of them here.
Lets just say, it's all fun and games until someone gets killed or maimed.


I see what you're saying, and even though one could argue that the point is relative, there is a real difference between right and wrong, and that supercedes whatever "money" has to say about it.

The over-fishing of our oceans has a real impact on all of us, not just the industries, and just because our governments are either too corrupt or too craven to do something about it--like, say, to write and enforce laws--that doesn't mean that somebody out there shouldn't at least try to do the right thing.

>> ^rougy:
I have to disagree about the "both sides" thing, hombre.
The Japanese fishing industry is raping the ocean and needs to be stopped.
Whaling is probably the most critical aspect of their crimes, but not the only one.


No doubt, but I am not picking sides on their actions only the way they deal with it.

More often than not most of the conflicts I have solved on my own have been peaceable, but those conflicts didn't deal with monetary incentive.

When there is money to be gained and someone wants to stop it for the right reasons then people will get hurt. Right is also subjective and relative. Your version of right, and mine may be two completely different things. The latter sentence is just a figure of speech, I do think the Japanese are wrong, but I also think the Sea Sheppard crew are playing with fire.

I have some other opinions about monetary incentive, bodily harm, and the idea of swift pacification. But I fear repercussion for leaving a record of them here.

Lets just say, it's all fun and games until someone gets killed or maimed.

Cmon those stairs are not part of the "private residence" Yes it is part of Pitt's property, but it is NOT part of the dormitories, it's a bridge from the dormitories to a classroom building. AND they were not on the bridge, they were on the stairs that went down to the street, which does not go to the classrooms. The students got too close and got burned, end of story. I work at Pitt, and I went to Penn State, I saw PLENTY of riots. You can easily get yourself out of harms way when you see police coming. They clearly gave them multple chances to leave the area. First Amendment :

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.

This was NOT a peacable assembly. It clearly had anarchists included, therefore this is not covered under the first amendment. I feel bad for the students that got hit with tear gas for being too close, but that is a risk you run by standing too close to an non-peaceable assembly.

ok,
so you just gave a longer version of your original point.
then ask me questions i already answered.
and where is this mans right of redress and protest an "opinion"?
you disagree with his methods..ok..got ya.
i dont,for reasons i have already stated.
i enjoy a frisky debate,maybe too much sometimes,but this is no longer a debate.
it's an exercise in circular logic,and it will bear no fruit.
remember my friend,it was YOU who called me to this table.
my original post was misunderstood by MGR(i think anyways),but others,including you decided to take a swipe.
i set my premise,made my argument and i stand by it.
maybe it would help if i said i thought the guy was a sanctimonious prick,because i do,but that would not alter my original point.
you...
on the other hand,did NOT make your argument,at least in a quantitative sense.
if i may be allowed to sum up your argument.
"the guy was acting like a rude dickhead harrassing those people who did nothing to him."
i actually agree with that,but that had NOTHING to do with my argument.
my point is he had a RIGHT to do that,and i did not necessarily disagree with his methods.he may be a sanctimonious prick,but he has the RIGHT to be a sanctimonious prick.
the minute you start censoring which form of protest is acceptable (already done btw.i linked the page)and which ones offend the tender sensibilities of a choice few,when will that form of censor stop?
the RIGHT to protest peaceably,even if unpopular,should never be tampered with.because the minute one right is gone,its gone forever.
while this man may have been annoying,he didnt not harm anyone.did not threaten and when asked to leave,he did just that.
dont be so quick to throw away a right based on a "personal opinion".
thats all im saying.
disagree with his tactics,hell..hate the man if you want,but dont fuck with that freedom.
we already have "free speech" zones,lets not give big brother any more reason to shut us up.
seewhatimsayin?
in any case,nice tossin the debate ball with ya.
hope you at least see where im coming from,
if not..
well..
dont know what to tell ya bud.
peace.

What I DID see, is that they clearly didn't need to Taser him - nevermind the punching...

I think what is needed, is a retraining in general, on how to defuse a situation and bring a confrontation to close through a peaceable means.

True, we never saw what preceeded, but those officers didn't look like they were in harm's way or any danger, so the phaser should not have been fired!!

Freedom of assembly is hard to handle for the law enforcement establishment. But that's freedom, so suck it up because that's exactly what you swore to protect. It's the first freekin' amendment you fools.

"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."

>> ^quantumushroom:
On September 25, 1789, the day that it approved the First Amendment, the First Congress called on President Washington to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:
The first part of Washington's Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Newdow is just another intellectually dishonest attention-seeker, basing his claims on the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" which appears nowhere in the Constitution but was written by humanist Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Baptists.

No one is being forced to recite any portion of the Pledge, so his argument is moot anyway.


At the time that resolution was passed, members of congress objected on the grounds that congress is proscribed from legislating religious matters.

On September 25, 1789, the day that it approved the First Amendment, the First Congress called on President Washington to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:

The first part of Washington's Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."


Newdow is just another intellectually dishonest attention-seeker, basing his claims on the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" which appears nowhere in the Constitution but was written by humanist Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Baptists.


No one is being forced to recite any portion of the Pledge, so his argument is moot anyway.

There are many things that I can abide, but I just can't stand the Patriot Act.


"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.
-Samuel Adams