"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Is the common rational for allowing Patriot Act type invasions of privacy, all in the name of protection. This is a rather common defense of such actions. Many of the same who are for such intrusion, are against video taping the police. The counter is that if the officer has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. 299 of the 300 of your officers had nothing to fear. 1 out of the 300 was, as you say, and idiot. I'm personally for removal of bad police officers. And if the "storm trooper" card keeps the other 299 in check, then so be it. Keep them honest.
pepper spraying a couple of protestors is about 1 on the 1-10 scale of terrorist acts i'm concerned about.
Freedom has a sliding scale. Neat. So long as we just trample a little bit of freedom, no worries, right? Or just do a little bit of brutality, no harm no foul? So, if a terrorist wants to blow up an un-used, non-occupied, run down and rat infested barn in the middle of BFE, this would be about the same as a pepper spraying, and you'd be for it?
blowing up anything is the same as pepper spraying? i'm no fan of the slippery slope argument. degrees matter.
WRONG! Free speech is just that, speech. When you behave in an aggressive manner towards another individual, it is no longer just speech, it is actions. These idiots are getting in other people's faces, spitting, defecating, throwing bottles, etc.
You scaled it. You put pepper spray as a 1 on the 1-10 of terrorist acts. Terrorism comes with blowing things up. If blowing things up is a 10 on that scale, and pepper spray is a 1 on the same effin' scale... then it stands to reason that you are, in fact, quite a fan of said argument and degrees. Shall I rehash for you? Hm. Methinks you not thinking today dro.
Then arrest those committing said actions. I went to a football game once. It was a good game, and emotions ran high. Some UT fans threw some bottles on the field, threw some drinks on UNC fans below, spit, cussed and got into other peoples faces. There were even fights. Did they evacuate the entire stadium? No. They did not. By your logic, they should have. In other words, you don't trample the rights of those abiding by the law because others are not.
I don't see this as a speech or liberty issue. Public goods are "public", meaning governments have to judiciously weigh how they are used, protected, and claimed. When my daughter has a birthday party at the local park, we reserve a shed for 200 dollars, and essentially "claim" that space for the hours allotted. After that, it "returns" to the public. Additionally, local governments have long used public nuisance laws that have been constitutionally protected in some cases. Georgia's "anti-mask" laws have been used to ward off KKK gatherings, for example. There is probably a free speech case somewhere here if someone wanted to make it. But local governments also have to govern.
It is not the protest that is important, it is the underlying freedoms that are being trampled on. I could give a rats ass about this protest, it has no meaning, no direction and is, basically, a bunch of punk ass kids and jobless heathens causing hell. But I'll support their right to cause hell as equally as I will any other exhibition of freedom.
Here I thought the constitution was a set of principles, not a living, breathing document. Now we are talking about what sort of assemblies are and are not okay, whether those assemblies can even take place in a PUBLIC space... Wow. The constitution really is dead. We might as well scrap it, because clearly no one gives a shit if it doesn't fit their agenda.
You're wrong though. This debate highlights our oldest political tension -- between respect for individual rights (broadly construed in this case) and democratic will. It is perfectly inline with every justifiable fear that Madison had about democracy, and even those reservations he had with republics. It is the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, Pullman Train Strike, Counterculture Movement, etc. all over again. This group isn't quite as savvy as the others, but the protest and their detractors reveal things about our political system and political culture that is perfectly American, if you ask me.
A couple of the movements you mentioned armed themselves, which is what pushed it into the grey area you are referencing. Despite what SOJ and others may believe, the vast, vast majority of occupiers have no weapons. Not even molotov cocktails. *I am sure I will soon be insulted and called names, because an incident involving molotov cocktails occurred. I am here to discuss things, not give statistics lessons to SOJ.
Yeah, I guess I didn't even see that in my original point, nor did I know about the violence of the Occupy group. I was just dissecting the controversy, I suppose.
would you be as quick to support a Christian group occupying a public park for months protesting, say, abortion laws or in support of anti-gay marriage legislation?
I honestly would not want them frog-marched off to jail. It would be highly disturbing if that happened.
Support the group? Probably not. Their liberty to produce their message? Absolutely. Even support the rights of the idiots of Westboro, even though I despise their message, and wish they would go away. Support the rights of those who want prayer in school, and even equal time for Creationism teachings in science classes, though it is not science, so long as it isn't forced upon the school. I don't have to agree with the message to support their right to have their message, regardless of how different my belief system may be. Shoot me another example, we'll see if we can find the line of my support for the Constitution.
