*quality

These girls block punches...with their face.

Two more votes and i'm Silver. Woot!

*discard

Thanks for clapping with the camera at the end.

You just failed your Film 101 Course.

*promote

CNN/Fox News - or in general most TV 'journalist' seem to have very shallow knowledge of most of the issues they conduct interviews on. They rely on whatever notes or questions someone else prepared. It makes for a very odd "interview".

Jeremy Scahill on the other hand has a very specific and detailed understanding of the subject matter - that is what comes across here.

The 24 hour news networks need to worry less about providing 24 hours of news and more about providing one or two hours that are worth watching.

One interviewer I am continually impressed by is Terry Gross, of NPR, who you can tell does extensive research before her guest are on air.

@blankfist Thank you for the promote.

I think this is a really interesting issue. Outside of what we all think about OWS (pro, con, apathetic) their protest raised some interesting legal issues.

Some good articles on the subject:

Curfews, loitering & freedom of association
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/curfews-loitering-freedom-of-association

Assembly Explained
http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/assembly

A Brief Lesson Plan on Assembly:
http://documents.mccormickfoundation.org/Civics/programs/files/pdf/FASI-Sum2011/AssemblyLesson.pdf

Do you even know the definition of statist? You don't seem to.

There are plenty of real cases of police abusing their powers and local governments failing to maintain basic rights, but this isn't one of them. Post those and I'll agree with you.

@blankfist

Right. I try to illuminate the discussion with a detailed understanding and interpretation of what the right to assemble means and you label me a statist?

Bravo.

Except that nothing I have said indicates that I believe the state should have a role in economic or social policy. Your label is completely non sequitur.

Read up on the strict scrutiny test. The state doesn't have the right to stop you from protesting based on the CONTENT of your protest. However, local and state governments may pass ordinances or require permits for certain areas or times of day etc.

This is what allows the Klu Klux Klan to assemble and protest - even though the general public and those in government dislike their message.

Furthermore, the false analogy you maintain between the USA and Soviet Russia is even more of a joke. You know what would happen to all the protesters, you, and any bystander who didn't flee immediately in old Soviet Russia? Siberia.

Thanks for the sift. Really good conversation between the two of them.

I don't always agree with Reza, but his new book does sound interesting.

The title of this video is a joke, right?

These people don't really understand the Bill of Rights and First Amendment or what their right of assembly really means. It does not mean nor has it ever meant that you can show up on any public property and do whatever you want.

Some good articles on the subject:

Curfews, loitering & freedom of association
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/curfews-loitering-freedom-of-association

Assembly Explained
http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/assembly

A Brief Lesson Plan on Assembly:
http://documents.mccormickfoundation.org/Civics/programs/files/pdf/FASI-Sum2011/AssemblyLesson.pdf

Many of the illegal "protesters" here are just standing their silently, but guess what.. that isn't protected.

If the police politely ask you to move along at a crime scene - you do so.

The kind of behavior this group is indulging in is comical to me. What was their message? I missed that. Furthermore, they purposely set up a situation where they are going to have problems with police and then pretend to be surprised when they are asked to disperse.

Anyone questioning whether online media matters now has an answer.

*promote