Protest Against Bush & Go To Jail.

[Art Eatman]

I wasn't at Crawford, so I don't know exactly what went down. But I have a lot of background of watching "Peaceful Protest", from the Free Speech movement at Berkeley on through the whole Vietnam era. I'll just say that many of those peaceful protests were designed from the git-go to provoke whatever authority was present. The 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago was the greatest success insofar as wilful and deliberate provocation.*

Given the comments about the makeup of the Crawford LEOs, they may well be easy targets for provocateurs. Generally, in any protest group, you'll find a few who happily provoke, and a good many who are too ignorant of reality and will mouth off at the wrong time.

Now, Austin has had a generally-liberal city council since back in the 1970s. Still, in order to express your ideas, whether in support or in protest, there are procedures to follow to stay out of conflict with law or ordinance. It doesn't require a conservative backwater to find trouble.

To me, it's not an issue of First Amendment rights. It's an issue of following established procedures before expressing one's views. It's not an issue of what those folks at Crawford wanted to do; it's all about how they went about their doings. When you mix ignorance with arrogance, you find trouble, just real quick.

Art

*Just as example of how bad it was in Chicago, the peaceful protestors just happened to have golf balls and tennis balls with nails driven through them, and balloons filled with urine and excrement--all of which were thrown at police. Or I should believe these sorts of items are commonly just lying around a city park?

 

[Obiwan]

Lots of conjecture...short on facts....the usual suspects for the most part.

By all means, do not give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt.

The man is keeping us down.

But blaming the President is a huge stretch...(unless it feeds your agenda)

But hey...pile on...it's fun...facts just get in the way

Rubber hoses....I bet they used rubber hoses....of course they did....

I can SENSE IT!

 

[Hedger]

Jim Peel - I agree we should all read more

We obviously don't know all the facts just from the article, but here is my take on it:

On February 16, it [the jury] convicted five peace activists of violating the parade and procession ordinance of Crawford, Texas. That ordinance required 15 days' notice and a $25 registration fee.

The protesters were convicted by a JURY of violating the parade ordinance, not for obstructing LEOs or disturbing the peace as Jim Peel's post implies. JP's posts on disturbing the peace and obstructing are interesting, but do not appear to be the legal basis for the arrest and conviction.

I think JP's confusion arises because the LEOs apparently gave the protesters the opportunity to disperse, although they probably did not have to do so. They most likely had probable cause from the get go, and used the warning to give folks the opportunity to cease the unlawful activity. Those that didn't showed their intent to continue the unlawful activity (in this case, parading without a permit and 15 day notice), and were arrested, as they should have been.

You can argue all you want that the parade ordinance is silly, stupid, unconstitutional, etc., and it may be. Looks like the defense attorney on appeal has spotted the correct issue, whether they prevail or not. There are many ordinances like these throughout the United States. The SCOTUS has upheld these laws where they are speech content neutral and limit discretion on authorities in issuing/denying the permits. See, e.g., THOMAS V. CHICAGO PARK DIST. (00-1249) 534 U.S. 316 (2002).

And I hope you would see why this is a good rule of law. Imagine taking your family out to the City Park for a nice picnic... Mom and Little Suzie just break out the fried chicken and much to your surprise a local Handgun Control group has decided to have an impromptu "Zillion Loon" march in the park right through you picnic area... My guess is that you would be a bit irked.

Free speech does not trump every legal restriction on speech. There are permissible legal restrictions on speech, according to SCOTUS. This ordinance may not be one of them, but it may very well stand the test.

 

[LawDog]

I'm given to understand that protests in- and outside of Crawford, Texas have been a semi-regular event since W. became President.

800 protestors march through downtown Crawford

How many other protests have ended in arrests?

Another couple of hundred.

From the chest-beating and nostril-flaring, I get the idea that the Crawford PD have been firing tear-gas, using bull-whips and siccing the dogs on protestors as a routine matter of course.

Yet anothe couple of hundred at the Crawford Community Center

It's a simple question: how many other protests have ended in arrests by the First-Amendment-violating Crawford Law Enforcement Community?

Heck - even the Chinese have protested - the Falun Gong at Crawford

With all these opportunities for the Crawford JBTS to vi-o-late the First Amendment rights of multiple numbers of people, only the 'activists' mentioned in this thread and some trespassing Greenpeace idiots have gotten arrested.

Eight people. Out of literally hundreds, if not thousands, of protestors, and eight is all they can find to haul off and arrest.

Crawford PD has been slacking off.

"Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Pfagh.

LawDog

 

[jimpeel]

TaurusCIA

If you break the law doing it then expect to be held accountable.

Just as they have HOUSTON v. HILL, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) on their side I would have LEE v. INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, 505 U.S. 830 (1992) on mine.

If the police at the airport ignore that ruling, and my right to leaflet at the airport, just as the police ignored the ruling in HOUSTON v. HILL and the right of those protesters to peacefully assemble; would that be all right with you? I will not block any fire exit. I will not block anyone's access to the airport or anyplace within the airport. I will not engage in frightening or threatening behavior. Yet I could be taken into custody for standing there, smiling, and handing out little pieces of paper.

There is little comfort in knowing that your rights are being violated and you have no immediate recourse against those who are violating your rights and breaking the existing law.

 

[jimpeel]

Hedger

Ah, yes, but THOMAS V. CHICAGO PARK DIST. (00-1249) 534 U.S. 316 (2002) was about a rally that was to be held at a public park not a public street. Perhaps a reading of SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) would be of more valid edification.

Petitioner, a Negro minister who helped lead 52 Negroes in an orderly civil rights march in Birmingham, Ala., in 1963, was arrested and convicted for violating 1159 of the city's General Code, an ordinance which proscribes participating in any parade or procession on city streets or public ways without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. Section 1159 permits the Commission to refuse a parade permit if its members believe "the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused." Petitioner had previously been given to understand by a member of the Commission that under no circumstances would petitioner and his group be allowed to demonstrate in Birmingham. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that 1159, as written, unconstitutionally imposed an "invidious prior restraint" without ascertainable standards for the granting of permits, and that the ordinance had been discriminatorily enforced. However, the Alabama Supreme Court in 1967 narrowly construed 1159 as an objective, even-handed traffic regulation which did not allow the Commission unlimited discretion in granting or withholding permits, and upheld petitioner's conviction. Held:

1. A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights. Pp. 150-151.

2. Picketing and parading may constitute methods of expression entitled to First Amendment protection, and use of the streets for that purpose, though subject to regulation, may not be wholly denied. P. 152.

3. Since the terms of 1159 gave the Commission unbridled authority to issue or withhold parade permits without reference to legitimate regulation of public streets and sidewalks, the ordinance would be, absent a limiting construction, unconstitutional on its face. Pp. 150-151, 153. [394 U.S. 147, 148]

4. The narrow construction that the State Supreme Court placed upon 1159 in 1967 does not necessarily validate petitioner's 1963 conviction; the test is whether the ordinance was actually administered "so as not to deny or unwarrantedly abridge the right of assembly and the opportunities for the communication of thought and the discussion of public questions immemorially associated with resort to public places." Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 . Pp. 153-155.

5. Since in this case 1159 was administered in accordance with its impermissibly broad language, so as to "deny or unwarrantedly abridge" the First Amendment rights of the petitioner and his organization, the petitioner's conviction may not stand. Cox v. New Hampshire, supra, distinguished. Pp. 155-159.

281 Ala. 542, 206 So.2d 348, reversed.

 

[Khornet]

Hey, 316

"But a willingness, on insufficient evidence, to believe that the protesters got what they deserved.."

How 'bout "A willingness, on insufficient evidence, to believe that Repub JBTs are oppressing free speech just because the Progressive says so?"

 

[316SS]

Khornet wrote:

"But a willingness, on insufficient evidence, to believe that the protesters got what they deserved.."

How 'bout "A willingness, on insufficient evidence, to believe that Repub JBTs are oppressing free speech just because the Progressive says so?"

If the jackboot fits ...

Seriously, though, how 'bout it? I have endorsed neither position (i.e. "Got what they deserved, case closed", nor "Repub JBTs"). Without reading back through all the posts, I think jimpeel stated at one point that the protesters rights had been infringed. If I understood his argument, it was based on the undisputed fact that the protesters were arrested and charged on the basis of the Crawford parade and procession ordinance, which ordinance he argued was invalid and/or invalidly enforced. I won't speak for him, though.

I don't know that the Crawford police are Republican, or what their motivation might have been. But when those engaging in political speech are silenced by law enforcement agents, the onus is on those arguing that said silencing is justified to demonstrate that free speech has not been infringed. Just like RKBA, free speech is not without limitations. But free speech ought to be limited for a demonstrably darn good reason.

My real beef is with those posters in this thread who suggested that the cited article provided enough evidence to conclude (conclude, not suggest, indicate, etc.) that the protesters got their due, no wrong was done, case closed. The article, in my state opinion, supported no (or very few) valid conclusions inasmuch as it constitutes poor evidence either way.

To sum up: I'm inclined to be suspicious when political speech is silenced. Not that it is always unjustified, but in my opinion, it nearly always is. The silencing of free speech ought to be carefully scrutinized, not assumed to be justified offhandedly, because of the political beliefs of the silenced.

316SS

 

[Khornet]

316,

.....fair 'nuff.

 

[mrapathy2000]

these people were lucky to only be arrested unharmed and eventually set free.

lets see what would of happened had they did this in china perhaps.

hmmm police firing on demonstrators and tanks running over people, some demonstrators jailed and tortured. I am glad to be an American to avoid that.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/deathamerica.jpg
http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/loveny.jpg

 

[flatrock]

Wow, reading that article it sounds like the rights of those people were definately violated. Of course that article only provides one side of the story.

The jury got the oppertunity to hear both sides of the story and arrived at a unanamous decision of guilt in only 90 minutes. That tells me there's either more to the story, or that the jury decided that some of those people were lying.

We all have a first ammendment right to voice our opinions. However, the Police have a responsibility to keep their citizens safe, and to prevent "protesters" from blocking roads and keeping the law abiding citizens there from having their lives being disrupted by people who think their first ammendment rights are more important than the rights of others.

Requiring a permit to hold a large permit is hardly unreasonable. It allows the police to be prepared to deal with the bad behavior of SOME people that are often attracted to such protests.

I've run into some police that have little respect for people's rights. However, the jury only taking 90 minutes to determine their guild tells me it isn't likely that the police were the problem in this case.

 

[TaurusCIA]

If the police at the airport ignore that ruling, and my right to leaflet at the airport, just as the police ignored the ruling in HOUSTON v. HILL and the right of those protesters to peacefully assemble; would that be all right with you?

Right? Not sure without knowing ALL the facts (exact law in question, full scope of your actions...)

Is it Right? Don't know yet. Is it Expected? Yep. If there is an ordinance requiring a permit that you chose not to get.

Just as they have HOUSTON v. HILL, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=482&invol=451> on their side I would have LEE v. INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, 505 U.S. 830 (1992) <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=830> on mine.

With all that on your side, you both should have no problem winning your case.

Without someone to enforce the rights/rules my "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" definitely would be in conflict with yours. And we would have anarchy.

Who decides what is peaceable, what is a crime, what is speedy, who is impartial, what is excessive or what is cruel and unusual, etc.?

Amendment I
...or the right of the people [peaceably] to assemble...
Amendment V
..or otherwise infamous [crime]...
Amendment VI
...the accused shall enjoy the right to a [speedy] and public trial, by an [impartial] jury...
Amendment VIII
[Excessive] bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor [cruel and unusual] punishments inflicted.

 

[VNgo]

I'm given to understand that protests in- and outside of Crawford, Texas have been a semi-regular event since W. became President.

800 protestors march through downtown Crawford

How many other protests have ended in arrests?

Another couple of hundred.

From the chest-beating and nostril-flaring, I get the idea that the Crawford PD have been firing tear-gas, using bull-whips and siccing the dogs on protestors as a routine matter of course.

Yet anothe couple of hundred at the Crawford Community Center

It's a simple question: how many other protests have ended in arrests by the First-Amendment-violating Crawford Law Enforcement Community?

I suspect the other protesters you mention were not arrested because they obtained the appropriate permits and hence were not breaking the law.

 

[HBK]

Peaceful protests...right. They, like all the rest of the left, just hate Bush. These protests are no different than the ones that I see in my stupid town every friday. A bunch of smelly hippies and peaceniks, standing on the corner with signs that say "Impeach Bush" and "Bush Lied." Then you have these five idiot women that are dressed in all black with a sign that says "We stand for Justice and Peace.' And they just stand there. All of them hate Bush. None of them are for the US as our founding fathers created it. They are just a bunch of worthless lowlifes that are upset that we have a president who isn't into the whole redistribution of wealth thing, a president who isn't going to take any crap from any third world countries. After looking at these morons for the better part of two years, I've come to the conclusion that peaceful protestors are anything but. They are consumed with hate and rage that we are not a socialist country, at least not socialist enough for their liking. The people that I have personally observed protesting are part of the blame america first apologist crowd and I do not consider them to be anything less than anti-american communists.

 

[telewinz]

Maybe I was a Bush man

Since before Bush announced he was running for President over 4 years ago I have been a loyal follower but too many of his policies have gone against my beliefs. Being a "War Time" President is a cop-out, dealing with the economy is much more demanding then letting loose "the dogs of war." On many core issues Bush has bailed out on me, like the AWB or putting a lid on "Rummy" and letting the generals decide how to fight the next war. Firearms look like they will be a non-issue this election year so Bush gets a free ride, again. I find it equally difficult to vote for Kerry and I won't throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate. I guess the determining factor this year will be VA Medical care. Forty years ago the country made a heavy committment to the Vietnam Vets, now that we are older we our viewed as a "liability" and the VA is dumping vets off the system. Who ever does the most to support VA programs will get my vote, and thats a shame because it's always been who was the most pro-gun in the past. BTW I have good private insurance but I use the VA out of choice, not need.

 

[TaurusCIA]

This not meant as a flame but just my opinion from personal experience.

BTW I have good private insurance but I use the VA out of choice, not need.

I know many retired people who have said the same thing about Social Security and Medicare. They have good medical coverage and have worked hard and smart and have amassed enough personal wealth to live comfortably. But they also have told me that it is their right to collect their benefits and they will whether they need them or not. And knowing them as I do I am sure they will be some of the first and loudest to complain if benefits are cut in any way. While this may be a benefit that they have earned, that doesn't mean they should use it if it is not necessary.

This whole idea of "entitlement" rubs me the wrong way.

Many young think they are entitled to a free ride supplied by their parents because their parents have means
Many workers think they are entitled to keep their job regardless of its benefit or profitability to the company
Many poorly educated people think entry level jobs are beneath them and they should start at the top

Because I had no family to support me when I had an accident while in High School I qualified for a lot of public resources and used them when I absolutely needed them (until I was released from the rehabilitation hospital 1 yr later). When I was released from the hospital I started college and worked 2 jobs seven days a week and attended school full time. I still qualified for public housing, money, etc. but I didn't use it because I did not have to. I could have cut back on my work and used the public resources but I knew I didn't need them.

Yes, I pay into SS & Medicare but if I don't need it I will leave it for someone who does.

No, I am not letting the government off the hook. They need to manage it better and there needs to accountability when they screw up. But I am not going to demand it for myself just because I can.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Taurus CIA

So your contention is that SS is an entitlement? Have we crossed that line? I have no doubt that we will cross that line because we are being prepped for it.

SS is a "retirement" program. The worker pays in and is promised a subsistance retirement. The employee pays in 6.2% and employer matches 6.2% for a total of 12.4%, or 1/8 of the employees income. Is this now a "new income tax?" In reality it is but no one has admitted that.

 

[Art Eatman]

Any more wanderings into "entitlement", "Social Insecurity", "I'm fed up with Bush" or suchlike and it's bye-bye time...

, Art

 

[TaurusCIA]

Thanks for the reminder.