People arrested for reading the Constitution

[ajk19]

You read that right, check it out:
youtube.com/watch?v=BCLuYvBeq40

Still think our rights aren’t being trampled on? Still think the government and police really care about us?

 

[Prague]

Ah Yes. Looks like Cindy’s group.
Code Pink…Hmm

 

[ajk19]

What are you saying?

 

[bpbasilphx]

I think there’s something more to this than the mere video, don’t you?

 

[ajk19]

There may be, but let me ask you this, if there was something else to this as you say, then why would the police not say a word when questioned as to why they were arresting the people in question? Little strange no?

 

[Melissa]

No, it’s not strange that the police aren’t answering the obvious baiting going on. Quite frankly, I’d like to see a video of the twenty minutes or so prior to the start of this video.

 

[iamscifimike]

There may be, but let me ask you this, if there was something else to this as you say, then why would the police not say a word when questioned as to why they were arresting the people in question? Little strange no?

The police are probably obliged to remain silent so as not to infringe on anyones legal rights. Especially since they were being filmed.

It looks like one political group was holding a rally when a 2nd one legally showed up but without the right to infringe on the demonstration of the 1st group.

Seems to me the 2nd group were the ones infringing on the constitutionally protected rights of the 1st.

 

[ajk19]

As long as they are being peaceful, why would it matter? If they were being unruly that would be one thing, but it doesn’t seem that was the case.

 

[ajk19]

No, it’s not strange that the police aren’t answering the obvious baiting going on.

How is that baiting? They were asked a legitimate question.

 

[geezerbob]

Threads started in this forum require a link to a legitimate news source. I don’t think a homemade video on YouTube qualifies.

 

[ajk19]

Fair enough, perhaps this could be moved to a more appropriate area then?

 

[rlg94086]

Well, based on the video alone (I’m trying to find a reputable article about the event), there was a “pro-war rally”, including Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham, and the protestors of this rally were warned that signs and assembly were okay but people who disrupted the rally with boos and loud reading would be arrested.

The Code Pink people were trying to drown out the speakers. They were arrested. Big whoop.

Shouting people down is a method that groups like Code Pink employ to try to deprive people they disagree with of their free speech. I think such action is deplorable, whatever side of the debate it comes from. Civil debate is encouraged…not shouting people down or drowning them out.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Thread can stay here as commentary with link

 

[rlg94086]

According to CodePink’s blog, the event happened on Capitol Hill, September 19th and was a “pro-war” rally where Lieberman spoke.

It might have been on September 18th, as one of the videos I watched said it looked like “brown shirts.”

townhall.com/content/569da936-5e7c-4d33-9287-e028a1e97666

The Vets for Freedom group are all wearing khaki polo shirts.

Regardless of the date, I’m glad people get arrested for trying to drown out others.

 

[Thekla]

Shouting people down is a method that groups like Code Pink employ to try to deprive people they disagree with of their free speech. I think such action is deplorable, whatever side of the debate it comes from.

Amen Robert! And while it’s one thing when silly little groups like Code Pink employ such means, it’s akin to dictatorial government when federal administrators actively harass, arrest, and put down the Constitutionally protected speech or our own citizens.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101662.html

"The “Presidential Advance Manual,” dated October 2002 with the stamp “Sensitive – Do Not Copy,” was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004. The techniques described have become familiar over the 6 1/2 years of Bush’s presidency, but the manual makes it clear how organized the anti-protest policy really is.

The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word “Bush” crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said “Regime Change Starts at Home,” while hers said “Love America, Hate Bush.” Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized."

 

[ajk19]

Ok I can sort of see why they may have been arrested, if they were asked to keep quiet and all this. But let me ask you, since when do you need an actual permit to protest somewhere (as mentioned in the article)? I think that’s ridiculous.

 

[ajk19]

Amen Robert! And while it’s one thing when silly little groups like Code Pink employ such means, it’s akin to dictatorial government when federal administrators actively harass, arrest, and put down the Constitutionally protected speech or our own citizens.

Funny you bring this up, there were some people at a Florida Marlins game not too long ago, that were told they couldn’t keep their signs supporting Ron Paul.

youtube.com/watch?v=3Oq7DNwn0HM

 

[gilliam]

Ok I can sort of see why they may have been arrested, if they were asked to keep quiet and all this. But let me ask you, since when do you need an actual permit to protest somewhere (as mentioned in the article)? I think that’s ridiculous.

I think the idea of getting a permit before being allowed to hold an assembly like this is so that competing groups won’t confront each other on the streets (this is a good example of this) and end up rioting. With permits each side can have their day in the sun. If these ladies cared about what is written in the constitution they were reading, they should have allowed the opposition to have their rally, as the opposition allowed them to have theirs. That is how a free society can function.

 

[rlg94086]

I disagree with the idea of squelching descent, but I do agree with most of what is stated in the last two paragraphs.

Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: "If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator’s effect."

The manual adds in bold type: "Remember – avoid physical contact with demonstrators! Most often, the demonstrators want a physical confrontation. Do not fall into their trap!" And it suggests that advance staff should "decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone."

Sounds like mostly sound advice to me…other than the “carrying signs” comment.

I really dislike it when people are shouting each other down and disrupting other people’s events. I’m glad steps are taken to remove people who use such tactics.

Amen Robert! And while it’s one thing when silly little groups like Code Pink employ such means, it’s akin to dictatorial government when federal administrators actively harass, arrest, and put down the Constitutionally protected speech or our own citizens.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101662.html

"The “Presidential Advance Manual,” dated October 2002 with the stamp “Sensitive – Do Not Copy,” was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004. The techniques described have become familiar over the 6 1/2 years of Bush’s presidency, but the manual makes it clear how organized the anti-protest policy really is.

The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word “Bush” crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said “Regime Change Starts at Home,” while hers said “Love America, Hate Bush.” Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized."

 

[rlg94086]

Funny you bring this up, there were some people at a Florida Marlins game not too long ago, that were told they couldn’t keep their signs supporting Ron Paul.

youtube.com/watch?v=3Oq7DNwn0HM

Good. If I were sitting near them, I would have wanted them and their signs removed…it’s a baseball game. Just as you are not allowed to discuss candidates on this Forum, the baseball stadium can have a rule allowing only baseball signs.