jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (18 posts)

Give me evidence of paid protesters

  1. ptosis profile image76
    ptosisposted 6 months ago

    I'm sure there is a bot that can scour craigslist for this. 

    I say it's total B.S. in order to delegitimize any peaceful public protest.

    Now this: http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/unde … bd07b.html

    SB 1142  Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything happens.

    For example, he said, a “tea party” group wanting to protest a property tax hike might get permits, publicize the event and have a peaceful demonstration.

    “And one person, possibly from the other side, starts breaking the windows of a car,” Farley said. “And all of a sudden the organizers of that march, the local tea party, are going to be under indictment from the county attorney in the county that raised those property taxes. That will have a chilling effect on anybody, right or left, who wants to protest something the government has done.”

    http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-those-who-make-peaceful-revolution-impossible-will-make-violent-revolution-inevitable-john-f-kennedy-15-61-65.jpg

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I really expect this to run afoul of the constitution as well as basic freedoms.  While I can see being part of a riot, whether you break a window or not, might work (accessory to a crime or something), being arrested and penalized before anything happens is a whole different topic.  Seems like intent would have to be proven in court and even then it would be shaky.

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

      This is frightening stuff from a desperate right wing that simply is terrified of any dissent, peaceful or not, against the machinations of their Chosen One. It is a tawdry assault on the principles of free speech that must be resisted at any and all cost.

      Progressives must put the spotlight on tyrannical actions by further protest to include a resounding NO to the Trump Regime.

      The Courts will laugh such a law out from its chambers when it's constitutionality is evaluated.

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image89
        RJ Schwartzposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Desperate in whose eyes?  When protesters destroy property, threaten public safety, and try to silence free speech, they're violating others rights and they lose any protections.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          "Desperate in whose eyes?  When protesters destroy property, threaten public safety, and try to silence free speech, they're violating others rights and they lose any protections"

          When anyone does the above yes. But that is not what this is all about. Can you arrest 'so called' ring leaders who themselves have not engaged in legal behavior while in protest of your Trump and his policies?

          Can you arrest people who are in the protest that are not themselves breaking the law?  This isn't "Minority Report", where you can arrest people for crimes they have yet to commit. This is a attempt to silence the resistance and dissent for its own sake and it will as it must, fail. We will see to that.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            "This is a attempt to silence the resistance and dissent for its own sake and it will as it must, fail."

            No it's not - that is merely a completely unjustified conclusion presented in order to vilify the right.  It is, plainly and simply, an effort to limit violence - something we all should want to see.  Though I agree that it will fail, perhaps it's a start to stop the senseless violence of so called "free speech" that is becoming more and more common.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

              Is there any concept of free speech that does meet with your approval? What about the Woman's march last 1/21. Is it possible to protest without running afoul of the Right? Is the only acceptable protest the one where everybody simply sits down and shuts up?

              You and I both know that in regard to Trump, that is not possible.

              I have less disruption problem with this concept than, say, the Macy's annual parade

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                An effort to combat violence in cities is but a ruse to attack liberals like yourself, then.

                May I suggest Understanding Paranoia: A Guide for Professionals, Families, and Sufferers by Martin Kantor?  It is available at Amazon and could go a long ways in providing a better understanding.

  2. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 6 months ago

    You really will need your judiciary to stand up on these issues. Or you will be heading straight into a police state.

  3. RachaelLefler profile image90
    RachaelLeflerposted 6 months ago

    JFK's quote is garbage, no excuses for violent protests. They have every right to do it peacefully and yet you see many of them vandalizing others' property, blocking traffic, even beating people up. Would JFK have wanted this?

    1. promisem profile image93
      promisemposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      History is filled with violent protests on moral grounds including the American revolution.

      I haven't seen evidence that "many" of the millions who have protested so far are beating up people.

    2. ptosis profile image76
      ptosisposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Perhaps you need to re-read the bill
      http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/ … -protests/

      Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. Free speech rights still need constant, vigilant protection.

      According to this law if one organization had permits and all was legal as the opposition organization who would purposely destroy property knowing that the peaceful protest organization would go bankrupt with property forfeiture.

      So I stand outside with a sign. Another person doesn't like what my sign says and breaks a window. All that I own is taken away from me.  Now I have nothing to lose and will stand with that same sign again. Now what are you going to take away from me - my freedom? Put me in jail because I was "blocking the sidewalk" with a "dangerous weapon" of cardboard with "sharp edges"???

      Can do this with all organized protest. Break a few windows as the opposing org - the organizing org get the bill. So if Dems break thing up at a Rep rally - the Rep rally foots the bill? Does that make sense to you?


      David Kearns said on February 24, 2017 , 10:20 am at 10:20 am

      "These are attainder acts. These types of laws were in place during Henry VIII. Take your land and property job and station because you spoke out. "

      What is ex post facto law and bill of attainder?
      Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        "These types of laws were in place during Henry VIII. Take your land and property job and station because you spoke out."

        Ever since we decided that "speech" included intentional disruption of other's lives in order to gain attention we have seen a growing problem that the "speech" includes physical destruction of property and person.  Is there no end to what we can do under the label "free speech"?

        While I don't think this law will survive for long (or should), I DO understand the desire for communities to protect themselves from being damaged or destroyed under the guise of free speech.

        1. ptosis profile image76
          ptosisposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          already have laws on destruction.  This is a attempt to squelch peaceful protest by having you the peaceful protester be responsible for someone else's criminal actions. Please tell me how this is justified.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, we have laws on destruction.  Which are really well enforced when police back off and let the rioters do as they wish.  And then turn an attempt to actually control, or least be paid for, destruction is turned, somehow, into an attack of free speech.

            But I do agree that the law will not survive, and for the very reason you bring out.  Punishing one for the crimes of another is not reasonable.

            1. ptosis profile image76
              ptosisposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              I was watching Portland OR protest last night. Used to live in Portland.  the aggressive protesters acted like $%#holes.  Wow. I am SO GLAD that I live in rural area now where all I have are bears, javelinas, coyotes  etc.

              I'm going to have to lay off  watching this crap and return back to normal life outside instead of getting upset inside watch crap on the internet.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                You couldn't pay me enough to live in a major city.  A suburb of a big town is quite enough, thank you.

                But wasn't Portland where they were actually arresting them?  I thought I saw that somewhere.

  4. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 6 months ago

    Seems like the right is using the actions of a few disorganized hot heads to justify crushing organized political opposition. Any political organization can be swiftly destroyed with the kinds of measure you are describing.

    I imagine Trump believes he has an overwhelming mandate to do whatever he wants. Bannon is the kind of extremist ideologue who will not care how he achieves his ends.

 
working