The First Fucking Ammendment / DNC protests

Amendment I

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.

Wanna see me get real angry? Fuck with my rights. Theres some shit going down outside the DNC that matters a whole lot more to me than the hot air coming out of the rich folks inside the DNC (although I heard Kucinich was good, from the Rude Pundit)

Ok I'm rewriting this, it was written originally with a lot of emotion and verbed versions of four letter words. Lets just take it slow, first off is the article that got me fired up in the first place. READ THIS SHIT PZ is a lot calmer than I would be if someone sent this letter to me.

Then there is the AP version of the story. Now this claims that the protesters were video taped charging the police, that does change matters significantly, then it is no longer a peaceful protest and the cops have the right to disperse it. I want to see the video.

So here is an example of a tense situation a couple days ago that did not end so badly, it gives a good idea of what the guy in the Pharyngula post was doing. It's worth a read.

And here is the same papers take on the events of that evening, while not nearly as harsh as the first account, it still sounds like the police were at fault. One important note here, eyewitness are not particularly credible, especially in an emotional situation, or when blinded by pepper spray. But if I was the guy who was pepper sprayed while trying to get to the bus, I would bring assault charges against the police. Then I'd probably want to move to a new town.

Here is a persons pictures from this event, they don't really tell much but they're interesting. Heres some pics from a person who agrees with the arrests. Pics from a protest without arrests.

A national Anarchist group, that's protesting at the DNC and other places. Apparently people are also pissed about the local secret prison, nick named "Gitmo on the Platte."

Heres some more, now this was a different event there was only one (or two) arrest. They claim the guy who was arrested hit a counter protester, if thats the case then fine, you can't hit people. The only problem being that the guy who was hit doesn't know if he was or not.

“If he hit me, I didn’t feel it,” Israel said. “But then again, I have a hard head.”

He is a bible thumper... nah that joke is too easy. Since its unclear if the guy hit him or not I'll just leave that alone. The more interesting question is the shouting match that led to the confrontation. Does freedom of speech include amplified speech? A normal shouting match is annoying and unproductive but perfectly legal and pretty much expected when you have protesters and counter protesters. But what about scouting matches with bullhorns? If I want to sit on the sidewalk with a freaking PA and scream about, well whatever, do I have that right? I'm really not sure. Then again I do know that the guy who cut the cord of bullhorn man was in the wrong, destruction of property, but should or can the cops tell bullhorn man to put away the bullhorn? Probably citing noise ordinances, or the need for the police to be able to be heard. I'm not really sure.

Heres a guys pics from this event, including the "assault" which the comments claim was friendly, a claim that I would doubt. Those two don't look like buddies, although there is a huge difference between touching an assault, it might be a loud place with bullhorn guy going, maybe he touched the other guys arm to get his attention so they could have a calm discussion, or maybe he swatted him, its a still photo. Actually in the picture both guys have there arms out almost to the other persons chest, to me it looks like people who talk with their hands, their obviously people passionate about their beliefs or they wouldn't be there, so they get going and their arms flail, lots of people do this, but who knows.

The cops did let people know what their rights are and what they can be arrested for, thats actually a really good idea. Some people think it was meant to discourage protesters but without reading the wording of it I'll just say that an outline of what will get you arrested is pretty handy. I wonder if it included walking past a protest en route to work? Theres one line in this that seems highly suspect to me,

Police are distributing a pamphlet reminding protesters of where they have a right to demonstrate but also warning them they can be arrested if they refuse a lawful order to disperse, even if they aren't breaking any laws.

So in other words the cops actually wrote a pamphlet that says you can be arrested even if you aren't breaking the law.... the founding fathers, real patriots, overthrew a government for shit like this.



Seattle Was A Riot - Anti Flag

Seattle was a riot, they tried to pin on us
But we didn't show up, with gas and billy clubs
An un-armed mass of thousands, just trying to be heard