Civil Liberties

tblue37

(66,035 posts) Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:30 PM Aug 2014

littlemisssmartypants suggested that I should cross post this thread here.

It concerns the "keep moving" rule that drastically limits the ability of people to participate in protests, as well as giving cops an excuse to swoop in and arrest people for stopping for a few seconds to rest or pray, and to arrest both protesters and journalists if they stop to take pictures or to do a brief interview. It strikes me as an serious violation of our First Amendment rights to assemble, to petition the government for redress, and to freely express ourselves without government interference.

It also clearly inhibits the press's First Amendment rights.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025434085

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

littlemisssmartypants suggested that I should cross post this thread here. (Original Post) tblue37 Aug 2014 OP

Congress shall make no law... Xipe Totec Aug 2014 #1

On that thread, sadoldgirl posted this reply: tblue37 Aug 2014 #2

Gandhi had the law against him yet he prevailed Xipe Totec Aug 2014 #3

It seems that opposition can make non-violent protest even more significant in some cases. jwirr Aug 2014 #4

The interpretive powers of the PTB are extraordinary. GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #5

Xipe Totec

(44,083 posts)

1. Congress shall make no law...

Reply to tblue37 (Original post)

Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:57 PM

Aug 2014

... 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.

tblue37

(66,035 posts)

2. On that thread, sadoldgirl posted this reply:

Reply to Xipe Totec (Reply #1)

Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:01 PM

Aug 2014

On another op I posted something like this:

When I was joining our OWS group, the police broke up the gathering. 2 days later I read in the paper that in 1984 or1986 the SCOTUS had come down with a decision about the First Amendment rights giving local authorities the right to declare when, how, and where the citizens were allowed to protest. This was supposedly the delayed reaction to the Anti- Vietnam war gatherings.

I have never been able to find that case nor the decision, but wished someone else could enlighten us.

I don't agree with the SCOTUS on this, but it seemed it made this the law.Thus, I don't know whether a new lawsuit by the ACLU would help, especially with the present court.

That ruling seems twisted indeed, but since this "keep moving" rule would preemptively prevent many who are old, sick, or disabled from exercising their First Amendment rights, I think that there would be grounds for a lawsuit over that point.

Xipe Totec

(44,083 posts)

3. Gandhi had the law against him yet he prevailed

Reply to tblue37 (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:10 PM

Aug 2014

On May 21, the poet Sarojini Naidu led 2,500 marchers on the Dharasana Salt Works, some 150 miles north of Bombay. Several hundred British-led Indian policemen met them and viciously beat the peaceful demonstrators. The incident, recorded by American journalist Webb Miller, prompted an international outcry against British policy in India.

In January 1931, Gandhi was released from prison. He later met with Lord Irwin, the viceroy of India, and agreed to call off the satyagraha in exchange for an equal negotiating role at a London conference on India's future.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)

4. It seems that opposition can make non-violent protest even more significant in some cases.

Reply to Xipe Totec (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:03 PM

Aug 2014

GeorgeGist

(25,437 posts)

5. The interpretive powers of the PTB are extraordinary.

Reply to tblue37 (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 24, 2014, 06:37 AM

Aug 2014

Reply to this discussion