[RhinofromWA]

The permit process does not impeed free speach and anyone cry that it does needs a reality check.

The permit processoff the top of my head)
1- lets them know how many people are coming and when to:
a) staff police, fire, emt's
b) prepare for redirecting traffic if needed
2- find or allow suitable places to stage event if it is large enough.
3- get back some of the cost of outsiders (not local tax base) dumping the burden on their town.
4- see that opposing view protestors keep safely apart from each other as much as possible (especially if it can easily turn violent)
5- make the protest workable for everyone. Knowing is much better than having it dumped on your lap Monday morning.

So where is the beef? Refusal of permits? If they don't pay enough to cover some of the costs they will put on the community than don't issue the permit. If they refuse because they don't beleive in the cause than there is a court battle in the future. Is it the cost? Well how much do you expect to get for free?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
You could say that the permit system abridges the right of the people to peaceably assemble

You would also be wrong......

No where does that shorten, cut, reduce their right to peaceably assemble.

"If men were angels, there would be no need for laws" - James Madison (founding father of the constitution)

Again, a blanket over use and improper citing of free speach. But what ever gets you to do what you want when you want regardless of how it effects others..............

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
You would also be wrong......

No where does that shorten, cut, reduce their right to peaceably assemble.

"If men were angels, there would be no need for laws" - James Madison (founding father of the constitution)

Again, a blanket over use and improper citing of free speach. But what ever gets you to do what you want when you want regardless of how it effects others..............

It does exactly that, it limits when and where people can assemble in protest. Especially if people cannot afford a permit, or if the permits can be denied of other reasons.

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by $tinkle
cybercast news service broke this today:but, just who is this legal group? Could it be the ACLU? almost.

it's the ACLJ

We both agree - that's a huge problem. Did they even approach the ACLU?

BTW have you seen Brandi Swindell? She's a hottie...

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
It does exactly that, it limits when and where people can assemble in protest. Especially if people cannot afford a permit, or if the permits can be denied of other reasons.

It doesn't. You are simply wrong.

The permits are variable cost depending on size. And not every person needs to buy a permit. Is that what you are thinking? If Joe Schmoe wants to organize a rally....he and 500 buddies chip in a buck or two and go to town. Or he gets one well off sympathiser to bone up for the permit.

When is breaking the law and damaging property and being a nuesance protected under the constitution? It isn't under free speach and that is what is being issued here a fee for the trouble it causes. That is not protected under free speach. If they denied the permit even though they had the money because they didn't like what the protestors were about......that is a violation and abridgement of free speach. It limits their speach. A permit to pay for the cost associated with hosting and cleaning up after them is not free....and oddly enough is seperate from, and not protected under free speach.

Sorry, you are just extending the free speach bit out farther than is right. I will call anyone out on this....not just you. I have in the past.

 

[Andyman_1970]

First, I'm pro-life but in no way indorse threatening or killing Dr.'s that perform abortions.

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
If you can't enforce the vandals than you can't enforce the person threatening the doctor to be consistent.

Why is there this inconsistancy? The vandal's are "activist's", and the pro-life protesters are "narrow minded etc etc", not to mention the enforcement issue.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
It doesn't. You are simply wrong.

The permits are variable cost depending on size. And not every person needs to buy a permit. Is that what you are thinking? If Joe Schmoe wants to organize a rally....he and 500 buddies chip in a buck or two and go to town. Or he gets one well off sympathiser to bone up for the permit.

When is breaking the law and damaging property and being a nuesance protected under the constitution? It isn't under free speach and that is what is being issued here a fee for the trouble it causes. That is not protected under free speach. If they denied the permit even though they had the money because they didn't like what the protestors were about......that is a violation and abridgement of free speach. It limits their speach. A permit to pay for the cost associated with hosting and cleaning up after them is not free....and oddly enough is seperate from, and not protected under free speach.

Sorry, you are just extending the free speach bit out farther than is right. I will call anyone out on this....not just you. I have in the past.

Requiring permits will not quell civil disobedience. Unlawful people will still continue to be. Designating "Free Speech Zones" and requiring permits to peacably assemble will only hamper lawful citizens, who want to exercise their rights as Americans. It create more "criminals" than it will stop, when otherwise lawful people disregard the rules being imposed on them and assemble elsewhere.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Requiring permits will not quell civil disobedience. Unlawful people will still continue to be. Designating "Free Speech Zones" and requiring permits to peacably assemble will only hamper lawful citizens, who want to exercise their rights as Americans. It create more "criminals" than it will stop, when otherwise lawful people disregard the rules being imposed on them and assemble elsewhere.

sorry, are we now talking about the 2nd ammendment?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Spud
We both agree - that's a huge problem. Did they even approach the ACLU?

i very seriously doubt it. I think they should have, if for no other reason than to smoke 'em out as the god-haters they are.

Originally posted by Spud
BTW have you seen Brandi Swindell? She's a hottie...

if you like goth chics, i reckon

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by $tinkle
sorry, are we now talking about the 2nd ammendment?

The parallels are cleary there...

AND

Mad props to my Nanooks! NCAA rifle champs 6 years in a row!

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
First, I'm pro-life but in no way indorse threatening or killing Dr.'s that perform abortions.

Why is there this inconsistancy? The vandal's are "activist's", and the pro-life protesters are "narrow minded etc etc", not to mention the enforcement issue.

Oh, hey I didn't mean it to sound like I was saying it was OK to threaten a doctor. Far from it. I can see what I typed sounds like I am all for threatening a doctor....not meant to read that way. I think they all should answer for their actions if they cross a line.

I think I missed the intention of Toshi's post in response to yours. For that I appologize to Toshi In fact I reread Toshi's post again, and I really need to appologize. : I read something into it that wasn't there..... I agree that there is a line that gets crossed (like Toshi said picketing and then threatening a doctor)

I think what side of an issue you are on can bias your feelings on wheather others should be aloud to protest the same issue from the other side. I agree with Andyman_1970. That why we need to step back at times and look at things again.(like me not reading Toshi's post correctly)

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i very seriously doubt it. I think they should have, if for no other reason than to smoke 'em out as the god-haters they are.if you like goth chics, i reckon

Hey, you got to give 'em that chance before you blast them. I'd join you in the barrage even though I'm card carrying ACLU...

That's a lousy phot of Brandi. Don't get me wrong. I can't stand her politics, but she's brilliant and hot. FWIW, I'd bet a dozen donuts she's in the US House within 12years (she's in her early 20's)

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Requiring permits will not quell civil disobedience. Unlawful people will still continue to be. Designating "Free Speech Zones" and requiring permits to peacably assemble will only hamper lawful citizens, who want to exercise their rights as Americans. It create more "criminals" than it will stop, when otherwise lawful people disregard the rules being imposed on them and assemble elsewhere.

Remind me to crap on your steps......

Permits do not hinder Free Speach. They are not the same.

the drafters of the costitution didn't say "yeah lets pay through the nose so others can come crap on our steps"

They said we shall not make laws limiting people from saying what they want about the goverment. We can't arrest them for what they say. No where does it say you can get a free ride and trash the decided location of protest, block traffic, crawl up cranes (seattle recently) and the like. That is not protected under free speach. Getting a permit simply does not hinder the act of free speach. Holding 10,000 protestors in Pioneer Square (DT Seattle for not locals) is not logistically possible without some major preparation. Correct? All that extra (non std) preparation is a drain on the local government at the benefit of the protestors. Is it right to foot the bill that is created by an organization? I don't think it is. Am I stopping them from saying what they want? No and that is what the protection of free speach is all about.

The permit process is just blown out of proportion by people who don't want to take responsibility for what they do. It has no limiting factors on Ma and Pa picketing the local mechanic shop because they feel they got ripped off. If 500 people were out side and in the street then the local authorities have to deal with it....and that costs big money. A parade gets permits for blocking traffic....so the city can plan and staff accordingly. This is no different. It has little to nothing to do with free speach. IF your beef is where they can protest because it isn't near the event location I can see that....but I don't want 10,000 protestors walking around the city either feeling like they own it and have the right to impeed my life, especially if they didn't plan it with the city.

There is nothing wrong with getting a permit and you don't need to be Bill Gates to get one. That is all over dramatic BS. Thanks for playing.......

 

[Tenchiro]

What you don't seem to understand, is people who are going to riot are not going to be hindered by the fact they weren't issued a permit.

The government does not have to know when are where people are going to assemble. Legislation like this is only going to anger more people and increase the possibility that things will get out of hand by further annoying already upset people.

Furthermore, what you seem to be saying is that if people do get unruly and start breaking things and assaulting others. Well that is ok because they have a permit and the damage is paid for.

Why do conservatives always insiuate that only criminals care about their civil rights anyways? If you don't care about yours, then move to Iran don't help f*ck up America though.

 

[Silver]

$tinkle, I don't get your argument.

"They probably didn't approach the ACLU, but the ACLU is bad because they didn't take the case."

What next? This is like a creationist arguing about evolution on the basis of fossil evidence he doesn't believe in in the first place.

There is a word for that, you know.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
$tinkle, I don't get your argument.

"They probably didn't approach the ACLU, but the ACLU is bad because they didn't take the case."

What next? This is like a creationist arguing about evolution on the basis of fossil evidence he doesn't believe in in the first place.

There is a word for that, you know.

misquoting?

 

[Silver]

Try disengenious.

 

[Spud]

Oh my, I’m finding myself in quite an uncomfortable situation. The ACLU is an official organizer for “the March for Women’s Lives”. Hmmm, I’d better type out a letter asking them WTF is their position on the ACLJ suit.

Damn, is that a slice of crow I smell in $tinkle’s kitchen… Looks at shoes uncomfortably….

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
What you don't seem to understand, is people who are going to riot are not going to be hindered by the fact they weren't issued a permit.

The government does not have to know when are where people are going to assemble. Legislation like this is only going to anger more people and increase the possibility that things will get out of hand by further annoying already upset people.

You are right jerks will riot without permits. Knowing where 10,000 people are going to be on any day and cuase a city to shut down is the cities business. We have permits for everything. Get over the free speach thing in regards to the permits. It does and will not impeed the free speach of the portestors. It does not, and can't. Upset people are rioters and whould be delt with.....peacefull protestor should have no problem getting a permit and behaving themselves. So are these angry protestors the rioting type or peacefull type? A permit will not be the deciding factor.

Furthermore, what you seem to be saying is that if people do get unruly and start breaking things and assaulting others. Well that is ok because they have a permit and the damage is paid for.

Why do conservatives always insiuate that only criminals care about their civil rights anyways? If you don't care about yours, then move to Iran don't help f*ck up America though.

That is not what I am saying....nice try. If they do damage property (windows cars etc) that is above an beyond the permit fee and would be delt with through prosecution. The tore up grass, trash left behind, overtime for police medics etc is subsidized by the permits....not fully paid for necessarily.

This is not a civil rights/free speach issue. Nothing in the permit process (unless abused) is going to hinder a groups free speach.

Cons./Liberal aside this is a Free speach non issue. Why do you seem to think planning a huge demonstration is some how taking away your rights? Why do you have that Nancy Kerrigan(sp?) look like this is bashing your knee before the winter Oylmpics? This will not degrade America. Especially in regards to free speach. It is only in the eyes of government haters that this is a bad thing. If you don't want to take reposibility for your actions, buy and boat and live by yourself in the ocean. We all have to live together.

The only real problem you have with the permit process is that they are going to chrage some money to and organize around something you fantasize about being rebelious and carefree. Well time to enter the real world and work together.

After I read all the whining and babbling about how this is impeeding a persons right to free speach......I picture this phrase:

Henny Penny, I think your sky is falling.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Try disengenious.

i'll try it just as soon as the ACLU loosens their grip on it.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Spud
Oh my, I’m finding myself in quite an uncomfortable situation. The ACLU is an official organizer for “the March for Women’s Lives”. Hmmm, I’d better type out a letter asking them WTF is their position on the ACLJ suit.

Damn, is that a slice of crow I smell in $tinkle’s kitchen… Looks at shoes uncomfortably….

not sure what i should be eating crow about, unless you have a timeline at the ready which speaks to which group was first seeking representation.

"The National Park Service has adopted a policy under which decisions about who may protest or speak in public places are made based on content and viewpoint of speech. Worse, the Park Service here is depending on the whims of the private organizers of the March for Women's Lives to determine what speech to suppress,"

(from previously supplied CNS link)

do you mean to suggest the ACLU would claim "conflict of interest"? Which would prove my point that they would defend one particular flavor of speech over another. I'm convinced that free speech is not subject to gag orders imposed by the mere existence of the contrary argument.

Would it not be a beautiful day if the ACLU represented both sides of this topic? They would shut people like me up from accusing them of being partisan.

 

[fluff]

Must....not...get...dragged....in....

Oh ****it.

There really is only one right side in this argument if you support the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of action and the right to protest injustice.

This law gives an administrator (a public servant) who wishes to prevent a protest the ability and means to do so. They can simply refuse to grant a permit.

Therefore it does restrict freedom.

The argument that you are actually having is over the importance of that freedom. Any freedom is open to abuse, that's one of the costs of freedom.

Even a peaceful protest will inconvenience some, that's another cost of freedom. What should not be allowed is violence.

Regardless of whether you agree with the protestors they should be allowed to protest peacefully.

Hey, I might think going to church is dumb, or believing in God is silly but that does not mean I am right or that people who do those things are wrong, it simply means we believe different things.

And don't you think that if 10,000 people believe in something enough to give up their time that their belief needs a degree of respect.

This place is pointless when people ignore principle and instead base their arguments on isolated and minority examples to categorise entire movements. Actually it's probably pointless all of the time.

I'm off to throw a mattress at a police horse.

 

[Spud]

$tinkle - must I really spell this out? Have you no compassion man?

Allright then, Dude - I appear to be dead wrong that crow being prepared in your kitchen is about to be served to my azz....

Hello, I'm agreeing with your shizzle...

and btw, I'm sending a letter to the ACLU calling them on this...

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by fluff
This law gives an administrator (a public servant) who wishes to prevent a protest the ability and means to do so. They can simply refuse to grant a permit.

Therefore it does restrict freedom.

exactly. this clearly constitutes an "impeedment"[sic] (sorry, kevin: it's "impede" for future reference) of freedom.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

This is not a civil rights/free speach issue. Nothing in the permit process (unless abused) is going to hinder a groups free speach.
[/B]

It's the abuse that I am most worried about. When you get a low paid civil servant that is in charge of approving permits and is on the opposite side of the requestor, who is to say that person won't deny them out of spite?

Voila, civil rights abuse.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
Must....not...get...dragged....in....

Oh ****it.

There really is only one right side in this argument if you support the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of action and the right to protest injustice.

This law gives an administrator (a public servant) who wishes to prevent a protest the ability and means to do so. They can simply refuse to grant a permit.

Therefore it does restrict freedom.

The argument that you are actually having is over the importance of that freedom. Any freedom is open to abuse, that's one of the costs of freedom.

Even a peaceful protest will inconvenience some, that's another cost of freedom. What should not be allowed is violence.

Regardless of whether you agree with the protestors they should be allowed to protest peacefully.

Hey, I might think going to church is dumb, or believing in God is silly but that does not mean I am right or that people who do those things are wrong, it simply means we believe different things.

And don't you think that if 10,000 people believe in something enough to give up their time that their belief needs a degree of respect.

This place is pointless when people ignore principle and instead base their arguments on isolated and minority examples to categorise entire movements. Actually it's probably pointless all of the time.

I'm off to throw a mattress at a police horse.

the fluff'n-ator

Abuse of power is a real fear but not one that limits free speach or the right of assembly. The permit is nearly a step to take to get to the assembly. If a public worker were to refuse to issue a permit they are introuble. Doesn't mean that the permit process shouldn't exist. They are loosely related. The refusal of permit based on beliefs is then a violation of that assembly issue on their way to practicing their right to free speach. That is a BIG what if and doesn't come close to representing the rule. In fact I say it would be extremely rare...the way the US is litigeous it would happen once....maybe.

Make sure the broken spring is pointed towards teh cop when you throw the mattress.....

Remind me to crap on your steps also......

Rhino

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Toshi
exactly. this clearly constitutes an "impeedment"[sic] (sorry, kevin: it's "impede" for future reference) of freedom.

Don't impeed my way of spelling dag'nab'it!

What Fluff listed shows an abuse of power reflective on teh public worker not the permit process itself. Do you think that as soon as that happened someone wouldn't sue someone? I mean come on....we are the USA. We sue, it's what we do.

Impedement(?) is an issue outside the permit process. That is all I am saying. It "can" "possibly" "not likely, but could" be an impedement of the right to assemble but not Free speach. Not really a right to assemble issue either. It is an abuse of power of a public worker that would be sued, not a reflection of the permit process. If cops flushed out protestors before they could assemble, that is impeding the right to assemble.....

The permit process doesn't impede free speach or the right to assemble. It is a part of the process to do it. Any jerk public worker should be prosecuted accordingly if they refuse a permit because they dissagree. And believe me the ACLU would love to get their nose into that.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
It's the abuse that I am most worried about. When you get a low paid civil servant that is in charge of approving permits and is on the opposite side of the requestor, who is to say that person won't deny them out of spite?

Voila, civil rights abuse.

Big what if Tenchiro......but if it happens...

Viola, prosecuted public worker and your permit signed the same day your permit is refused.

No more rights abuse. In the larger picture, there will be no impedement of the right to assemble. This is part of that right. No worker will refuse permit in spite....well maybe once and then you stomp and holler and threaten suit against the city you will get their manager to give it the OK. That the request is feasible.

You protest in large group...
You have the right to get a permit, to practice your right of assembly and free speach.

Someone quote me in a signature: lol

"It is a strange new world when people in mass can't crap on someone elses door step when they feal like it." - RhinofromWA

Atleast I think I am funny.......

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Big what if Tenchiro......but if it happens...

Viola, prosecuted public worker and your permit signed the same day your permit is refused.

Dude are you serious, you can't even get same day service at the DMV...

What if it isn't a lowly clerk that does it, what if it was the mayor that caused it or the governor? Then you are going to have a bunch of "criminals" out protesting.

The permit process is crap, and should be considered un-American.

 

[Toshi]

just to trip y'all up more: impede -> impediment. yay for english.

anyway, like others have said, the permit process itself is what's offensive. the degree to which it's open to abuse is near-irrelevant -- it shouldn't be there at all. period.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Dude are you serious, you can't even get same day service at the DMV...

What if it isn't a lowly clerk that does it, what if it was the mayor that caused it or the governor? Then you are going to have a bunch of "criminals" out protesting.

The permit process is crap, and should be considered un-American.

You question why a snot nosed kid denies you permit application....you go to the top. You watch it happens once. then there is a court battle and all is good in america. If the governer does it you have biger problems than a permit process.

The permit is Un-American? F'th the process, buck the system! Permits are bad....mmmm-kay.

Good night Henny Penny. May your permit laden roads and permit laden infrastructure treat you well tonight.

Making a big thing out of a simple permit....you are the problem to a non-existant situation of "maybe's" and "what if's". Give it a rest.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Permits aren't the problem. What ifs and maybe's are the problem...created by you for you to have something to anguish about.

This is hilarious! People are up in arms over something that won't happen over a process that is right and needed.

Guess that shows me how F'd the liberal side can get. It is ludecris(sp?) that this has stirred up so much comotion. I wouldn't sit her all day argueing if you weren't so freaked out about something that is a nonissue.

The only thing making it an issue is you....you can't even see that. Go freak out about what Kerry would do to the country instead of how this might (will not) impede your free speach

I am out, and laughing at you all the way down the hall.....

HAHAHAHAHahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*ahem* AHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*cough*

*snicker*

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Toshi
just to trip y'all up more: impede -> impediment. yay for english.

anyway, like others have said, the permit process itself is what's offensive. the degree to which it's open to abuse is near-irrelevant -- it shouldn't be there at all. period.

It is a simple permit.....

Only impediment is the people crying it will impede thier rights.

 

[Tenchiro]

It is the government dictating when and where people can express thei views. Plain and simple. It may be almost insignificant in the big picture, but it is a first step in the wrong direction. If you feel comfortable giving up not only your rights but mine as well, for something as trivial as convenience then that is very sad and very un-American.

If we as Americans allow this, where does it stop?

 

[drtbikrr]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i'd like to read about your dad's horse freaking out & trampling 100 or so berzerkleyites. Actually, streaming video would be more entertaining.

He has never trampled anyone, want video email me at drtbikrr@yahoo.com
Nick :unitedsta

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
We have permits for everything.[/B]

Like fire-arms.

I find it curious that a few folks who vehemently oppose controls (such as strict permits) on gun purchase and use, would advocate controls on someone's right to stand somewhere and speak.

What if we started charging ALL gun owners the distributed cost of policing the small fraction of guns that are misused? Would that be the same as charging all protesters for the misbehaviors of a few?

(note: this is NOT an argument for or against gun control.)

Look. Not all our tax money makes it back to us. You don't like it, pick another country... I'm happy to lose a few pennies each year to the clean-up costs of maintaining our simplest and most fundamental right.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Guess that shows me how F'd the liberal side can get.

You've got to be kidding me.... one of the core conservative values is that of small government. ANY permit process is somewhat at odds with this principle. No one is making this a partisan issue but you.

 

[MMike]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Viola, prosecuted public worker and your permit signed the same day your permit is refused.

my brother in law used to play the viola.....

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by ohio
You've got to be kidding me.... one of the core conservative values is that of small government. ANY permit process is somewhat at odds with this principle. No one is making this a partisan issue but you.

Ah ha! We currently live in Bizarro world, where conservative means bigger government and out of control spending.

Conservative and liberal don't mean much anymore, unless you're itching to demonize the other side...

 

[valve bouncer]

I think some of the posters in this thread could do with one of these. Kinda like a permit, I guess