Protest and the 1A - it is not a cart blanche allowance

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 4
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
One problem with citing the 1A as justification to turn peaceful protest into violence is the belief that the 1A is license to do whatever one can get away with doing without reprisal from law enforcement. Nope. We are free to protest in consideration of some events requiring permits [and we are responsible to know when that is necessary], and are free so long as our activity harms no one else, and as long as peaceful means we keep our hands to ourselves and to no one or nothing else.

We all have the right to be offended. That's an unwritten consequence of the 1A, but it is not license to suspend common sense, and our offense cannot replace the 1A with chaos. In particular, it is not license to censure.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
The inherent hierarchy and disparity of any society is it's fundamental problem irrespective of ethnicity and skin tone. Especially if we teach expectation.


Occasionally, laws and common sense cease to be relevant....Until such times as laws and common sense become relevant again.

Though human social conflicts are now  exacerbated by the immediacy of social media.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
1A neither justifies nor prohibits any protest, violent or otherwise.  1A explicitly forbids the USFG from abridging (shorten, curtail) the freedom of speech or peaceful assembly.  So, requiring a permit to peacefully assemble on federally managed properties (as is true of Lafayette Park) is an obvious offense against the  US Constitution.

I don't know any protestors who express

"the belief that the 1A is license to do whatever one can get away with doing without reprisal from law enforcement."
but it does seem to be an article that trump, proud boys, boogaloos and other looters hold in common.

Presidents  and other tyrants who would wield weapons of chemical warfare on peaceful Americans assembling to express their beliefs but are not swiftly removed from power have earned any uprising that might beset them,  although I still call for non-violent opposition up to the point that Trump starts killing dissenters (history suggests he almost inevitably will  start killing dissenters provided that  his self-delusion of righteous competence  is permitted to escalate unchecked).

[I don't hold this opinion this but] doesn't the prevailing, (conservative) interpretation of 2A as an citizen based contingency necessary to keep our freedom secure (especially from Federal overreach) confer the right of violent protest as  did our Founding Fathers?

Certainly, the Declaration of Independence justifies violent and unlawful acts

"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Trump reveals his despotic design when he admires Putin and Xi and Kim.  Trump reveals his tyrranical mindset when he chastizes the governors

"You have to dominate, you’re going to look like a bunch of jerks.  You have to do retribution, and you can’t do the deal where they get one week in jail,” he said. “These are terrorists. These are terrorists. And they’re looking to do bad things to our country.”

You and Trump seems to share the unconstitutional view that governments are in the business of vengeance.  You said 1A doesn't shield "reprisal from law enforcement."  Trump says "you have to do retribution"  This is quite wrong.  No democratic govt. or govt official (cops included)  is ever permitted the authority to revenge.

"Revenge is defined as the act of committing a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived.  Francis Bacon described revenge as a kind of "wild justice" that "does... offend the law [and] putteth the law out of office." Primitive justice or retributive justice is often differentiated from more formal and refined forms of justice such as distributive justice and divine judgment."

Any govt. official acting from a position of retribution, reprisal, revenge is in far more profound violation of law and order than some out of work, out of school teenager breaking windows and stealing tennis shoes.  Cops pretending to some deluded right to retaliation is how this whole thing started.


fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
I am surprised by your assumptions of words used, and mischaracterization of words not used when declaring constitutionality of concepts. To wit:

1A explicitly forbids the USFG from abridging (shorten, curtail) the freedom of speech or peaceful assembly. 
If a "peaceful assembly" turns peaceless [i.e. the rights of participants and bystanders [including owners of property, real or otherwise], or law enforcement become endangered] the exclusion of abridgment is null and void by the first action of peacelessness by the now peaceless assembly. Same condition as yelling "fire!" in a crowd wherein there is not fire.


but it does seem to be an article that trump, proud boys, boogaloos and other looters hold in common.

 (history suggests he almost inevitably will  start killing dissenters provided that  his self-delusion of righteous competence  is permitted to escalate unchecked).
Convenient, but baseless accusation. Evidence, pls.


doesn't the prevailing, (conservative) interpretation of 2A as an citizen based contingency necessary to keep our freedom secure (especially from Federal overreach) confer the right of violent protest as  did our Founding Fathers?
No. The 2A confers the right to bear arms [weapons - not just guns, mind you. It does not specify just guns - that's a provocative progressivism, because my thumb can kill, and it is a borne arm that s not going to be banned anytime soon], but not to use them in ]illegal violence.

Certainly, the Declaration of Independence justifies violent and unlawful acts

"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Trump reveals his despotic design when he admires Putin and Xi and Kim.  Trump reveals his tyrranical mindset when he chastizes the governors

"You have to dominate, you’re going to look like a bunch of jerks.  You have to do retribution, and you can’t do the deal where they get one week in jail,” he said. “These are terrorists. These are terrorists. And they’re looking to do bad things to our country.”

You and Trump seems to share the unconstitutional view that governments are in the business of vengeance.  You said 1A doesn't shield "reprisal from law enforcement."  Trump says "you have to do retribution"  This is quite wrong.  No democratic govt. or govt official (cops included)  is ever permitted the authority to revenge.

Have a care to understand the meaning of words you state, and to avoid assuming definitions that are not synonymous. Let's take a few words out of your extended commentary above:  reprisal, retribution, dominate, revenge. The first three are not useable in terms of physical force, as you clearly imply [thus "justifying" Trump is a bully.]  Justified, legal force, yes, but not physical. My OED says otherwise. Revenge, alone, a word Trump does not use, but you do,

Reprisal [n],  An act or instance of retaliation for any (alleged) loss or injury; (International Law) a measure, such as a boycott or embargo, taken by one state against another in retaliation for allegedly illegal or unjustified conduct. 

Retribution [n], Punishment for bad conduct, criminal actions, etc., typically considered in terms of redress or repaying a debt to society; the avenging of wrong deeds, etc.; vengeance; an instance of this.

Dominate:  [transitive],  To bear rule over, control, sway; to have a commanding influence on; to master.

You and Trump seems to share the unconstitutional view that governments are in the business of vengeance.  You said 1A doesn't shield "reprisal from law enforcement."  Trump says "you have to do retribution"  This is quite wrong.  No democratic govt. or govt official (cops included)  is ever permitted the authority to revenge.

Revenge [n], The action of hurting, harming, or otherwise obtaining satisfaction from someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at his or her hands; satisfaction obtained by repaying an injury or wrong.

So, what is wrong with reprisal, retribution, and domination within the law? Show me the statute declaring Trump wrong. It is in neither the Constitution nor the Declaration.

Yet, by your own words, you are lumping all four words together as if synonymous. Nope. You're better than that, but you have a blind spot relative to Trump. You're in good company; many have the same myopia. Words mean things, but they don't mean all things, as I have just shown. Same with elections. Get over it. Yes, Trump is belligerent. That's not illegal. Trump is proud. That's not illegal. Trump is in your face. That's not illegal. Trump is telling the world "America First." That's not illegal. The world laughs at Trump. So what? Who said they're right. Yes, Trump has, at times, praise his adversaries. Read Sun Tsu lately? It's not illegal, and it does not demonstrate that he agrees with everything they do. That's ridiculous.  It's politics. dirty game, and this example is part of it. I'll admit, I had a blind spot with Oba'a. I think he was as useless as tits on boar. Case in point: my reply to you does not mean we're adversaries, and it does not mean we are not. We have been in debate, and, given the right subject, will be again, but, we're also friends, meaning we can get along in spite of differences of opinion. That's civility. You trounced me on definition in debate. Fair enough. I'm returning the favor; that's all.