you brushed off the point I made earlier about the free speech rights of a group of people should not come at the expense of others. OWS protesters do not have the right to occupy private businesses, or even use their facilities if the owners decline access. The do not have the right to defecate in doorways. They don't have a right to impede traffic on city streets and they don't have a right to block sidewalks used by pedestrians. They don't have a right to police themselves when criminal acts are committed in their midst. They don't have a right to cover up criminal activity. simply put, their rights end where someone else' rights begin.
i have no problem with protesting. camping on public land and crapping all over teh place is not a constitutional right.
Brush it off? No. What rights are denied? Can someone else use the park should they wish? Yea. However they must contend with the OWS protesters. There is no right to exclusive use of said park. Your right to use the park in only the manner you want to use it in does not supersede the rights of others to use the park as they see fit. If you want a non OWS infested park, you do not have a right to that. If you want to use a swingset, but it is in use, you do not have a right to that swing set. So, I'll ask you, what right is being denied by others by OWS? If OWS protesters are physically keeping others out of the park, not due to space constraints, not due to the desire to use a clean park, or any other "sensibilities reason," but actually forcefully keeping people who are not protesting out, then yes, I would say OWS is trampling on the rights of others. This is not the case, as far as I am aware. Thus, no rights of others are being trampled, only sensibilities, in that, "I don't want to go there because: it is crowded, it smells, blah blah blah." OWS protesters do not have the right to occupy private business, at all, or use facilities of others without permission. Are we talking about private, or public? New York was shut down because the park was private. Fair enough. A public venue, though? Absolutely not. Additionally, those that are defecating in doorways, trespassing, breaking and entering, vandalizing, etc, those are called law breakers, not protesters. Arrest the law breakers, not disperse everyone. Dispersing everyone runs the risk of trampling on the rights of those that have broken no laws, and are honoring their Constitutional freedoms. And if you are willing to sacrifice the Constitution, for the greater good, or the "marginally better good," you are not honoring the Constitution. I, personally, believe in honoring our Constitution. Lastly, you do have a right to police yourself. If your wife assaults you, but you love her, are you required to call the police and have her charged with assault and/or battery? No. Are you allowed to affect a citizen's arrest? In some instances. Is a store required to report vandalism, burglary, shop lifting? No. However, you cannot enforce punishment for the broken law, but you damn well can police it yourself. Being in the midst of criminal activity is not covering up criminal activity. Ever seen an underage drinker at a football game? How about a speeder? Someone not wearing a seatbelt? Ever been to a concert and seen a guy smoke some grass? By not reporting this, are you covering up criminal activity? No. Covering up criminal activity is when you purposely hide it, not ignore it. And again, arrest those that do, don't paint the entire movement with a broad brush, even if it is 65%:35% bad to good. Because then you have trampled on the rights of 35%. Then the solution is simple: take it to a judge, get approval for removal. Ensure that there is no 1st Amendment right violation, first. Not after the fact. If it is court ordered removal, post State Supreme Court decision, so be it. But taking action first, and then sorting out the details is inherently wrong.
They are still against the law. You can rationalize one act of ignoring the law over another all you like, but all you are doing is reflecting your delicate sensibilities, not addressing rights.
The rights of the rape victim is to not be raped. That right was violated, and I hope the person who violated that right is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. As you said, the rights of one end where the rights of another begin. The rape victim cannot claim that she has a right for others to report what they may have seen. Those who witnessed the rape may have a duty, a legal requirement and a moral obligation. But they are not "rightfully" required to act on the part of another if they do not see fit to do so themselves.
Haha, I love how we're not making things "into degrees," and yet every response has been "that's not the same as x".
Interesting perspective: 'Family Guy' Guy Busted at Occupy L.A. | TakePart - News, Culture, Videos and Photos That Make the World Better
I fail to see how that justifies any of the police action. Sitting across a sidewalk is "threatening" enough to justify spraying sitting people making no physical moves or contact with pepper spray? That's bullshit. I didn't see a single police officer even attempt to pass through. I never want to see you post anything about fearing a liberal police state because of gun control or anything, SOJ.
And you can clearly hear the officer saying they will shoot the students with the paintball gun. They did say they would "shoot students." Words were not twisted in that instance. Sorry if it sounds bad when chanted back at them.
Did I post an opinion either way? No, I did not. [uck fay] you and your assumptions. I actually posted it so people could draw their own conclusions.
Maybe you weren't hugged as a child. Maybe your multiple exes you mentioned have destroyed you emotionally. In any event, it is comical how you only have one mode: rabid.
Once again, the little ankle biter runs in trying to feel like someone. One thing about it. We would never have to to worry about you being the cop or the guy getting pepper sprayed. Both take a certain amount of backbone.
