Re: Bikes in Political Demonstrations: Paris June 5th

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by n9, Jul 14, 2004.

  1. n9

    n9 Guest

    Parade permits are denied for unconstitutional reasons all the time and
    in those cases the rights of indivuals are violated. Just because the
    Supreme Court has decided that in some circumstances some permits can
    be denied does not automatically mean that governments on any level
    have the right to decide when to grant permits and when not to.
    Likewise, obcenity laws to do not mean that free speech can be
    selectively disallowed.

    A demonstration is not automatically illegal because a permit is not
    granted. Judge's decisions to grant injunctions against demonstrations
    are almost always in the name of order over rights and are thus usually
    made to comply with the political context of the march... when such a
    demonstration is a political one it would be hard to argue (in my
    delusional mind) that the decision to not allow a group of citizens to
    assemble is honoring the language of the Constitution.

    In any case, in the modern era, if a gathering of people is spontaneous
    and has not been sponsered or organized by an established group what
    right do the Police act upon when they do what I have described above?
    If 10,000 show up in from of Toys R Us in Times Square to get a Furby
    on sale is there any authority for the police to detain them and
    threaten arrest if they do not disperse? I feel that this 'bike
    resistence' action for the RNC convention is very similar to this
    scenario. There are hundreds of thousands of autos and bikes of the
    streets of Manhattan all day -- what would give the cops the right to
    detain and arrest bikers on this day? Would they be within their
    authority to assume that all bikers are a part of this 'illegal
    assembly?' And, failiing that, how could they assert than *anyone* was
    a
    part of it?
     
    Tags:


  2. Hunrobe

    Hunrobe Guest

    >"n9" [email protected]

    wrote in part:

    >Just because the
    >Supreme Court has decided that in some circumstances some permits can
    >be denied does not automatically mean that governments on any level
    >have the right to decide when to grant permits and when not to.


    ---snip---

    The many Supreme Court decisions recognizing the government's duty to review
    applications for parade permits plus the longstanding recognition of that duty
    by the majority of the citizenry means *exactly* what you claim it does not.
    When granting or refusing those permits government must of course act in a
    lawful manner and when the parade is a form of political speech the reasons for
    denying a permit must stand up under the scrutiny of both the general
    population and the judiciary. That those applying for that permit think the
    courts and everyone else is wrong doesn't make a permit denial
    unconstitutional.

    >Likewise, obcenity laws to do not mean that free speech can be
    >selectively disallowed.


    Sorry but again, that is *exactly* what it means. I think you are using the
    word "can" when what you mean to say is "should". I *should* be tall and rich
    instead of just goodlooking and charming. That doesn't mean I *can* be. Okay,
    maybe charming is possible but tall? Nope. Ain't gonna happen. <g>

    >If 10,000 show up in from of Toys R Us in Times Square to get a Furby
    >on sale is there any authority for the police to detain them and
    >threaten arrest if they do not disperse?


    If they disrupt public order, are given an order to disperse but refuse, then
    yes. Since you probably won't like that answer either and will disagree even if
    I post a few pertinent NY State statutes (Sections 240.10 and 240.20, unlawful
    assembly and disorderly conduct respectively if you care to look them up) I'll
    bow out of this discussion. It's obvious to me that your mind is made up and
    you don't wish to be confused by facts.

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  3. On 15 Jul 2004 05:55:55 GMT, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

    >>"n9" [email protected]

    >
    >If they disrupt public order, are given an order to disperse but refuse, then
    >yes. Since you probably won't like that answer either and will disagree even if
    >I post a few pertinent NY State statutes (Sections 240.10 and 240.20, unlawful
    >assembly and disorderly conduct respectively if you care to look them up) I'll
    >bow out of this discussion. It's obvious to me that your mind is made up and
    >you don't wish to be confused by facts.


    It always amused me that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a riot,
    strictly defined, can have as few as three members....

    -Luigi

    >
    >Regards,
    >Bob Hunt
     
  4. Hunrobe

    Hunrobe Guest

    >Luigi de Guzman [email protected]

    wrote:

    >It always amused me that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a riot,
    >strictly defined, can have as few as three members....


    IIRC, in New York State the number is four but then it's common knowledge that
    Virginians tend to be 33.3% rowdier than the more placid residents of the
    Empire State. <g>

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  5. On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:52:32 -0400, Luigi de Guzman
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >It always amused me that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a riot,
    >strictly defined, can have as few as three members....


    Marx Brothers on a good day...

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...
     
  6. On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:56:22 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:52:32 -0400, Luigi de Guzman
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>It always amused me that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a riot,
    >>strictly defined, can have as few as three members....

    >
    >Marx Brothers on a good day...


    With a name like that, they could probably get them on insurrection
    charges here in Virginia.

    -Luigi

    >
    >Curtis L. Russell
    >Odenton, MD (USA)
    >Just someone on two wheels...
     
  7. Leo Lichtman

    Leo Lichtman Guest

    "n9" wrote: .(clip) Just because the Supreme Court has decided that in
    some circumstances some permits can be denied does not automatically mean
    that governments on any level have the right to decide when to grant permits
    and when not to. (clip)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    The freedoms you wish to protect are not absolute. The law is very complex
    in this area, and we often hear of cases in which the courts weigh the
    public need against individual rights. You have heard the argument about
    ones right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. If freedom of speech and
    freedom to assemble were absolute, the courts would have an easier job, but
    society would not function, because of obstructionist demonstrations such as
    you want to protect. There is a huge gray zone here--we may differ on where
    to draw the line, but I hope we can agree that there has to be a line.
     
Loading...
Loading...