|
|
|
|
Terryt88
Skeptic Friend
USA
120 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2003 : 11:56:26 [Permalink]
|
I read the same thing. Who would want to live in a country which viewed dissent in such a light? It would make America the greatest threat to freedom in the world which many already see it as. This sort of law would just be icing on the cake. I sure as hell wouldn't live in a place were questioning the government could get you 25 years in prison. That legislators would even suggest it makes me want to look into living in a place more respectful of freedom like China or North Korea.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2003 : 14:19:41 [Permalink]
|
While the proposed punishment is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea of labeling people "terrorists" in these cases, the idea has merit, I believe.
To say that this means that "questioning the government could get you 25 years in prison" is a bit of a misrepresentation. This involves (or should only involve) large gatherings that block major traffic, for example preventing people from going to and from work, ambulances and firetrucks from getting to where they need to be, shutting down businesses, and tying up law enforcement.
One's right to protest does not overrule another's right to open and run their business, or to use the public roadways that everyone pays for, and they sure as hell aren't worth someone's life because the ambulance couldn't make it through in time.
Everyone has the right to publicly and peacefully protest. There's no reason, and they have no right, however, to purposely stage their protests in locations with the express purpose of disrupting other peoples' lives.
A citation with a stiff fine would be reasonable. Hell, if littering on the highway is worth a $1000 fine, this should be at least as much. Which do you think is more harmful? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2003 : 14:24:54 [Permalink]
|
@tomic wrote:quote:
I sure as hell wouldn't live in a place were questioning the government could get you 25 years in prison.
I'm no fan of the proposed law, but there's no need to strawman it to death. It's street-blocking and other disruptive activities (which I'm no fan of, either) that'll get you 25 years. Questioning the government would still be legal. After all, not all protests are aimed at the government.
Funniest thing about the proposed law: it's supposedly aiming to prevent protestors from disrupting free assembly. Bwahahahahaha! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2003 : 14:41:33 [Permalink]
|
I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that protestors at abortion clinics could protest in ways that would disrupt the clinics operations. I see no difference between protesting a war and blocking some traffic and blocking a woman from seeing her doctor. I am guessing the Supreme Court in their infinite wisdom would throw such a law out to be consistent.
I still see the attempt at punishing someone with the label of terrorist and throwing them in jail for 25 years as a way of trying to stifle dissent. Whether you like seeing traffic blocked or not this is a way of trying to scare protestors so much that they stay home.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2003 : 15:14:02 [Permalink]
|
I would think it would be already against the law to block traffic and keep people from living their lives. I think people actually do get arrested for that. 25 years is ridiculous.
I don't get the idea of blocking traffic though. Civil disobedience, in my mind, is about violating a law with which one disagrees, isn't it? Are these people against traffic or against the war?
Groups like the Voices in the Wilderness spent the last twelve years violating the sanctions by taking medicines and toys to children's hospitals in Iraq. That's reasonable civil disobedience. Not paying part of one's taxes because of the huge war budget is reasonable civil disobedience. Not saying that everyone agrees it's a good thing to do, just saying that it violates the laws with which one disagrees and doesn't just cause problems to get one's picture in the paper. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2003 : 20:31:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
@tomic: I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that protestors at abortion clinics could protest in ways that would disrupt the clinics operations. I see no difference between protesting a war and blocking some traffic and blocking a woman from seeing her doctor. I am guessing the Supreme Court in their infinite wisdom would throw such a law out to be consistent.
The supreme court ruled that RICO does not apply to abortion clinic protests. But there is another law that makes blocking the doorways and disrupting operations a federal offense. It's the "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances" measure. It went into effect around the same time RICO was being used to get the leaders of operation rescue. So, it is still a felony to block the doors and such. The bummer is, with RICO shot down it is virtually impossible to get the organizers of these particular protests.... On the other hand, the RICO law might have also been used to target war protesters.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2003 : 20:58:39 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo is right about the misapplication of civil disobedience in another way, as well: if I were to lose pay or be otherwise inconvenienced by protestors, it wouldn't help spread their message, which is the intent. If someone were to ask me what was being protested against, I would probably have to say something along the lines of, "I don't know. All I know is that those f---wads made me late for a meeting with my customer."
Now I'm sure that "dead-ins" and the like spread the message like crazy due to the media coverage, but because I'd be bored out of my skull, I wouldn't be listening to news radio in the car. I'd just be pissed. At the protestors. I'm sure I'd find out later what they were protesting, but I'd still be pissed at them.
If people want to get their message across by getting arrested and thus getting lots of news coverage, they can do something simple like get hundreds of people to write slogans on some prominent building in water-based paint (without telling anyone it's water-based). The only people who'll block traffic that way would be the media, and everyone's pissed at them already. The only people incovenienced will be the cops and the guys who hose the building down.
I'm not an advocate of stifling dissent. I'm an advocate of dissent, so long as I get to choose what protests to participate in. By getting me stuck in traffic, the street-blockers force me to be a participant in their little drama, as one of the "victims" of their stunt.
I don't agree that that's acceptable any more than I would agree that forcing me to pray is acceptable. And the idea that the law is solely or even mostly aimed at trying to get dissenters to stay home is, to my mind, a complete crock. Did you see that big march in Chicago recently? The cops escorted them, didn't they?
On the other hand, I also don't agree that 25 years and a "scarlet T" is an acceptable punishment. It's way overboard. How about this: we get someone to estimate, conservatively, the total number of man-hours lost (both civilian and police/fire/rescue) due to a street-blocking protest. Call this number X. Then, call the total number of people arrested who were involved in the protest Y. Each such person can do X/Y hours of public-toilet cleaning, while the normal public-toilet cleaners get paid time off. Failure to bring their own adequate cleaning supplies for each assignment tacks on another 8 hours.
That'd satisfy me, and I'm not even in the custodial field, and wouldn't reap any direct benefit from such a sentence. Just the satisfaction that because I was stuck in traffic for two hours, somebody will have to spend two hours scraping the poop of strangers off nasty porcelain in a badly-lit stinky room, while the person who normally does that will be fly-fishing or watching a movie or something.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2003 : 01:19:48 [Permalink]
|
In Britain back in the 90's we had a series of "Stop the City" demonstrations in London that were designed to block traffic and prevent businesses functioning. But then, that was the point really as these were anti-capitalist demos aimed specifically at the City of London (ie the business district).
There are plenty of minor laws in this country ("Obstructing the Highway", for example) that deal with street-blocking protesters, an activity which is by and large entirely pointless unless you want to piss off a lot of tired commuters, many of whom might otherwise support your cause. |
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 05:45:43 [Permalink]
|
| I say fine them heavily, perhaps even make them responsible for the money the city has to pay to have police out, repair damage etc...and then maybe they will be more peaceful and try to avoid being arrested. 25 years/terrorist label is absurd though. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
