Goodbye, First Amendment

Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by AnonLikesPickles, Mar 3, 2012.

  1. anonymous612 Member

    Don't be an idiot.

    Hey, guess what. Entering a building without permission is already illegal. Hey, guess what else? Trying to disrupt a government function -- not protesting in general, specifically intending to be disruptive -- is already illegal, too. It does not make protesting illegal, it makes intentionally trying to stop government from working illegal. Which was, again, already illegal.

    Here's the actual text, which you kindly neglected to include.

    TL;DR: if you're intentionally being disruptive or you're blocking entrances and exits or you're threatening violence, you're going to jail.

    Besides, WWP advocates PEACEFUL protesting, tyvm. If you're doing the shit this makes illegal, you're already doing it wrong.
    • Like Like x 4
  2. adhocrat Member

    This is just the government insulating itself from the people. They know the people are getting pissed and the government is getting scared.
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Anonymous Member

    Stop being an idiot.
    OP Russia Today is the Russian version of Fox news.
  4. That's perfectly fine except that the police make up rules on the spot and tell you you're on the sidewalk when you aren't...This is just another thing for them to charge you with. Anonymous612 don't be an idiot, stop pretending that police play fair.
  5. anonymous612 Member

    It's called a videocamera.

    Also, please note the very significant difference between "being charged" and "being convicted."

    I'll stop pretending they play fair when you stop pretending the government is out to fuck you over because it just doesn't like you.
  6. adhocrat Member

    Note that the money you pay to defend yourself on bogus charges is NOT returned to you when the jury finds you not guilty.
    Stop striking down straw dogs. No one said the government is doing it because they don't like us. It doesn't matter what the motives are, all too often the results are pretty fucked up. It doesn't take much looking to see how screwed up the incentives are for 'tough' DAs to build a reputation. It is sheer personal aggrandizement. It has nothing to do with justice or the law or doing what is right, but it does have everything to do with getting some great political office where you can loot the public treasury and be hailed a hero.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. anonymous612 Member

    No, but it sure as hell is when you sue for false arrest and violation of your civil liberties.

    Prove it.
  8. Anonymous Member

    Hey, read the Constitution... WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS IT?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

    It's fucking us over. Who gives a fuck why.

    Your love for the government is totally fucking vomitous.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Anonymous Member

    Wait, let me guess... you watch Fox News daily?
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Anonymous Member

    I'm not the person you were responding too, but..

    Suing law enforcement is not as easy as you think it is, plus it will require more money you might not have.

    I've seen TV campaign ads for DAs running for political office where they brag about their conviction rate and talk about how they are "tough on crime".
    • Like Like x 1
  12. anonymous612 Member

    You must be new here.

    Bullshit. Half the time the PD has a fund set aside to pay settlements out of so they never even have to go to court.

    The case remains, the law bans the following things:
    1) Intentionally interfering with the government meeting in session.
    2) threatening violence
    3) blocking entrances or exits
    4) Trespassing.

    What part of that is it that you want to do?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Like Like x 1
  13. anonymous612 Member

    I still want to know why Spike is so upset over not being allowed to interfere with the normal operation of government functions or threaten government officials with violence.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. prove it. And, shouldn't you and your buddy be calling me a socialist? You two disappoint me.
  15. Because when he's all fucked up he goes on the hunt to rage at officials about his rights to smoke the dope and he's getting fed up with being busted.
  16. anonymous612 Member


    Well? That's not me trying to twist your words against you or anything. Those are what the law bans. Those are the ONLY things the law bans.

    I have both posted the actual text of the law ITT and translated it into common English for you. So what part of that law keeps you from doing something you want to do? Do you desperately want to trespass on federal property? Are you horribly annoyed you can't physically threaten a congressman? What part of this law is so offensive to you?
    • Like Like x 3
  17. adhocrat Member

    What i see is a sneaky law that will make it harder to know what is and isn't legal. If the article is right, then we won't know till after the fact if our action was legal or not. IOW, not an actual law but a political method of suppressing dissent by using legalities rather than actual law.

    Those politicians, always trying to pull a fast one on the citizenry.
  18. anonymous612 Member

    How so?

    The article claims the law bans protesting near politicians. It does not. It doesn't even ban intentionally interfering with a politician's daily business. It only bans INTENTIONALLY fucking with their business when that business is an official government action, such as Congress meeting. Which was already illegal. It also bans threatening or harming them (also already illegal, = assault or battery), blocking the exits (also already illegal, and a fire hazard), and being on restricted ground without permission (also already illegal, = trespass).

    If you show up and you're all "Lol, let's protest here," and it turns out some Senator happens to be there, they cannot then charge you with this the way they claim. And if they tried, it would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat by any public defender, because it's drastically NOT what the law says they can do. That'd be like arguing the First Amendment says I can punch you in the face. Uh, not even close.

    You would have to have 1. known the Senator was there 2. on official business, and 3. planned your protest with the specific intent of keeping him from doing that business, and 4, ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED in keeping him from doing it.

    And if you're doing that sort of protesting, WWP probably isn't the place for you.
    • Like Like x 3
  19. adhocrat Member

    it doesn't state which buildings are off limits, only that IF an official is there, or even the SS, then you've committed a crime. IOW, no advance notice is given, therefore we can't tell in advance if what we are doing is legal at that moment.
    My concern is the word 'restricted'. Public property is public, hence keeping the public off it seems well, dictatorial. Ohes noes, some public official might actually have to see a real person, one who might ask an awkward question.

    I might have read it wrong, but that's what I got from the article.
  20. anonymous612 Member

    It says IF there's an official in there AND you're intentionally interfering. Do you intend to intentionally interfere with the functioning of the US government?
  21. adhocrat Member

    That may not be what the law says (though I doubt anyone knows how the law will be interpreted) but it's enough to raise many questions.

    It seems it's being slipped in rather than discussed, always a bad sign, and since the WH is already protected by DC statue, this is simply an attempt to make dissent a federal offense.
  22. anonymous612 Member

    Okay, when I say the article is incorrect, the way to prove me wrong is NOT to quote the article in question. Quoting an incorrect article does not prove the same incorrect article correct.

    It says NOTHING about dissent. And it says NOTHING about proper, well-behaved protesting. It only makes already-illegal forms of "protest" a federal offense.
  23. adhocrat Member

    Then why they can't just use existing laws? There's a fuckton of them already on the books. What new need makes this law necessary?

    And I notice that it does not mention why such a 'restricted' event may occur. IOW, whenever some fat ass politicians wants to insulate himself from criticism and unexpected events such as an actual conversation with a constituent, they will invoke this law.

    You have way too much faith in a government that lies consistently. Considering how often politicians lie to us about pretty much everything, people still seem to have faith in them. It's like a religion for some people.
  24. anonymous612 Member

    So we agree, then, that the utterly ridiculous claim you've been making about the text of this law isn't true?

    It makes it a federal crime. Basically, it allows them to punish it more severely. It's an update on the punishment of the crime, not the crime itself.

    They can do that now, princess. Any place a politician is likely to be doing government business is fairly likely to be either restricted access (the Capitol for instance) or private property (the RNC convention). So...moral of the story, don't fucking go places you aren't supposed to be.

    I don't have faith in my politicians, I have faith in the organizational system behind them. Oh, your little Senator abused this law? Okay. Don't fucking vote for him.
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Anonymous Member

    You have to keep in mind that adhocrat has faith in a system that has never been tried before in the real world...

    Nor will it ever.
  26. adhocrat Member

    Not actually, I agree that I don't agree with your interpretation. But trying to discuss nuance with you is a mug's game.
    Right, some pigs are more equal. I got that.
    See, this is the crux of the matter. You seem to actually think that a politician is more important than say a pig farmer. I disagree. If anyone needs special protection, that pig farmer gets my vote. The politician can face the realities he wants the rest of us to face, otherwise he's just some effete elite with a stick up his ass.

    Faith in a system that won't let you sell lemonade. Faith in a system that allowed slavery in the US for 150 years. The Alien and Sedition Acts, the lack of habeus corpus in the Civil War. I could go on for hours, but the point is made. Our government is functionally insane. Faith in a system that has murdered 200M people. Christ on a pogo stick. That really is pretty insane. I know of several good therapists, should you come to realize your need.
    Yep, i'd say that faith is seriously misplaced.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Faith in a system that has never been tried in the real world isn't just misplaced: It is delusional.

    Just keep herp derping about how the ebil goverbment made you kill and has killed more people than McDonalds has served burgers (pointless strawmaning at its finest faggot!)... Makes you look more retarded than the system you fuck in the ass every chance you can.
  28. MisterSir Member

    I stopped caring at RT
  29. xenubarb Member

    So if there's already a law, wtf we need another one that does the same thing for?
    • Like Like x 2
  30. Anonymous Member

    I suggest voting with the feet. It's worked for me for the last 15 years.
    The US went into the toilet a long time ago, only just now people at large are sitting up and taking notice of it.
    There are still countries where one can be free, just gotta do a little Googling.
  31. anonymous612 Member

    No, the crux of the matter is you still think this is designed to protect politicians from protesters, when it's actually designed to protect politicians from attackers. Thus the assault line.

    Because it doesn't do the same thing, Barb. It makes it a federal crime, which makes the punishments more severe and alters the way it gets tried.
  32. Anonymous Member

    That's a very suave redefinition of terms, worthy of a Scientologist.
  33. Anonymous Member

    also: you liek your rights taken away, don'tcha?
  34. anonymous612 Member

    Yes, let's resort to implying people who disagree with us are Scientologists, it's about time for this thread to jump the shark.

    And I'd care about my rights being taken away...if this law actually took my rights away. Just because you can't read doesn't make you correct.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Yes, I am, because your pro-cop and pro-government rhetoric smack of the obscene cultishness that is Scientology.

    This thread jumped the shark the moment you posted in it. Your opinions are loathesome and your controlling nature is evident in the slime you spew here.

    I sure hope you're not teaching your ipecac-flavored misanthropy to your kids.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Anonymous Member

    Samefag: word-clear INALIENABLE.
    Clue: has nothing to do with Xenu.
  37. Losing argument so resort to personal attack instead, nice move!
    • Like Like x 3

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins