On 08 Oct 2009, at 10:29, LuKreme wrote: > On 7-Oct-2009, at 10:56, David Patrick Henderson wrote: >> the Constitution only guarantees that political expression >> should not have criminal penalties imposed by the government or its >> agents. > > > Oh really? > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to > assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. > > 'the freedom of speech' > > It says nothing about political expression.
Take that up with SCOTUS. But let's do a thought experiment. All speech is free as in free of consequence. Can one enter a crowded space with limited egress and decide to shout "fire" where there is in fact no fire and have no criminal or civil penalties assessed? Or better yet, if all speech is free, reconcile that idea with the exceptions for slander and libel. Stumped? Exceptions for slander and libel imply limits on speech without consequence. The Constitution applies only with regard to intercessions between the government and its agents and the people. > > If reporting the actions of the police, especially when they have been > know to frequently respond to peaceful demonstrators with violence and > assault, if that's a crime, then the constitution might as well be > recycled for toilet paper. > > If reporting where police are illegally barricading streets to abridge > the people's right peaceably to assemble, then we are already living > in a police state. > > Nothing I've read indicate that this is anything more than he police > bullying people for being watchdogs. Absolutely, the article clearly states that the burden is on the police to demonstrate that those charged were actually abetting criminal activity. The people arrested seem to me to believe that they were engaging in civil disobedience by making it possible for protesters to evade attempts by the STATE to curtail and impede the ability of the protesters to assemble PEACEABLY in protest. The peaceably bit is quite important. If the protesters were in engaging in violent protest, either property or personal, and the men arrested in this instance were aiding that activity, then the police position would seem to be justified and protected. If on the other hand the police charges are based solely on "failure to disperse", then I'd agree that this case is an egregious abuse of power. Dave -- "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." -- C. A. R. "Tony" Hoare _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
