388 in favor with 3 representatives opposing it.

Kings could get closer to them. This country is badly in need of some kind of outside intervention.

Maybe those tens of thousands of people of people should foil their plans, and not show up where they are expected to. What's the use anyhow, 'they' will be protected from even seeing the lowly people they are supposed to be serving. Why not hold the protest somewhere else while their 'security forces' are occupied guarding the precious rulers of the world?

Imagine them having all that security and no one is there? And what are they afraid of? What are they hiding?

And we had a Revolution that supposedly ended royalty ruling over the people!

Sadly, I don't think we are there yet. Of course, there is the creativity displayed by Occypy in the past; we'll have to see what shakes out...

A mob made their way to one of the top official's home. And they created such a clamor, with such a loud and boisterous voice, and since in those days, the Crown didn't possess more fire power than the commoners, the odious law as repealed.

Now, in the 21st Century, here in the USA, the government holds the power. They have a huge arsenal of "non-lethal" weaponry, including electronic equipment that can heat and blister the skin of those that have it beamed at them.

This grand experiment we are supposedly living in, would be the envy of those monarchs of old. Which we supposedly found so oppressive, and they were, that we needed a revolution to ensure never being subject to such oppression again. And the FFs put the 1st Amendment into the Constitution to emphasize the rights of the people to speak out, presumably not into the wind, or to sound-proofed fortresses where they could not be heard, but in the public square where they could be heard by their elected officials.

I'm wondering, since now they have passed laws to make protests that CAN be seen and heard by the rulers, illegal, if there is a need to become more creative. Maybe the people need to form committees who are designated to deal with different tasks. Eg, a huge Committee from across the country, to go directly to Congress to state the grievances of the people, agreed upon in advance.

And perhaps a Global People's Committee that demands to be allowed inside these Global meetings where the fate of the world's people is apparently discussed with zero representation BY the people? Look at the mess they've made around the Globe, which might have prevented if there had been some people's representatives at their meetings to put a stop to their foolish policies?

Or would they need bags of money to get such a hearing? And that raises another question for me, are there any restrictions on Corporate Lobbyists similar to those in effect against the people, to prevent them from getting close to the 'Representatives of the People'?

Maybe we the people need to appoint Lobbyists? They actually do pay for Elected Reps, salaries, health care, travel etc, so they could carry briefcases, empty of course, except for a receipt for the amount of taxes they pay to demonstrate that they do pay these people.

However it's done, they should not be allowed to escape hearing from the people who are the most effected by their decisions.

Wisdom to consider.

Thanks for this input and all the carefully thought out insights it entailed.

I'm speechless.

all are speechless!

and no one bats an eye.

sad and sickening

The media will report on it like it is a world changing event.

In Feb and March of 2003, we had seven hundred thousand people in the streets of San Francisco Calif to oppose the Bush Iraq War II, and the media barely covered it.

I thought I read where the actual problem is not the video that there is no law on video, it's the sound. THe recording of the word that must be agreed upon by all parties being recorded.

I am going to try to find out more. Now filming the police themselves may be different, but I need to find out if photos are acceptable and if video without sound is recorded.

Also if I am recording you, standing in front of me, and I have your permission, then what happens if my recording picks up things behind you. At what point is it public access? I mean, I can't record my children at the park because I might accidently record other people?

Where is the cut off?

found this at first glance

http://photocinenews.com/2010/06/03/videotaping-law-enforcement-illegal-in-3-states/

I forget where I saw it, it was on TV I think, but some officer who was video recorded during a traffic pull over was recorded by the individual he had stopped.

He offered up his badge number, slowly reciting the number so it could be heard when the video was played back. And he congratulated himself and the car driver on the fact that we live in a free nation.
he also offered up that as a police officer serving the public, he thought of his inter actions to be actions deserving of being recorded. Why not? If you are serving the public, then your conduct is not really "private" it is public, and should be as the officer pointed out, something that is up for grabs, including being up for grabs by a recording device. (Just as you and I don't expect privacy when we go into a bank. We know we are going to be surveilled.)

I'm sure I can find better. I still am not sure about a still camera. It seems like if the police are involved it is straight up illegal. THAT should be illegal.

Exactly as you say, the police should not be shy of the camera. As they say, "if they aren't doing anything wrong..."

Last edited Wed Feb 29, 2012, 11:55 PM - Edit history (1)

It would be nice if JFK King and Bobby could all come back vampire-like and put some things in order.

if ever I would for a Night of The Dead Undead, it would be for that re-alignment.