Privilege or Right?

Privilege or Right?

###

Amended: MODS, please bump this thread-up; and it's important in-more than one matter. This is exactly what causes social problems and class-oriented friction. Please, don't censor this thread by any action which hinders reading. Denying Ignorance, in all its forms, is my directive. Thank-you!

###

The right to assemble:

And this right is GUARANTEED by the United States Constitution by the first amendment, as stated in a paper titled: "Right to Assemble," by Lisa A. Bancuk, graduate student at Indiana University, who states verbatim that the first amendment forbids actions preventing citizens from assembling as stated that:

"Congress shall make no law 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"

Bancuk further illustrates and clarifies the right to: "1) parade and gather or 2) demonstrate support or opposition of public policy or 3) express one's views is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble," is a right which cannot be removed and is further clarified in U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of "Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939), the high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums."

Does this not prohibit the act of pepper-spraying citizens on sidewalks and streets? From the U.S. Supreme Court decision listed above, clearly makes the decision that pepper-spraying an assembly clearly violates Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights, does it not?

In U.S. Supreme Court Case of "Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)," actions taken which "penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly," seems to be a valid argument in-favor of protestors in the OWS movement, and becomes a viable argument to situations where persons rights are violated, which are guaranteed.

Bancuk states that: "many groups and organizations use assembly as a way to show support for an idea or dispute," which legitimizes the OWS movement due to the lack of Main-stream Media exposure and lack of media-interest in covering this important matter.

With the few examples here, illustrating the Guaranteed Right of Assembly, Protest, Freedom of Speech, for redress of grievances, there seems to be a huge-disconnect between citizens and government, in all its forms or creations; but when rights are violated and denied, there is a multitude of citizens and veterans, who are willing to step-up and go the extra mile to protect our rights here, at-home.

"Congress shall make no law 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"

When you cannot speak, write about it, and when you cannot write or publish, take to the streets and assemble non-violently and shout-it out at the top of your voices! When this last right is violated, any government who suppresses this highly-esteemed Constitutionally Guaranteed Right, is guilty of violating the Civil Rights of the Citizens and should not be allowed to further violate rights which are guaranteed; but if these are not successful in-changing policy, then we all must ask ourselves if we do live in a democracy or are we mired-in socialism. If the latter is true, then truly the United States has devolved into a perversion of what the Framers of the Constitution intended.

Source: "Right to Assemble," Lisa A. Bancuk, learningtogive.org... - LINK

ATS Article which inspired me to create this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Care to argue against this guaranteed right? If so, please leave comments, but read the "source article" first and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding cases illustrating this right before providing comments. Use your brains and don't troll this thread with illogical or irrational comments.

We live in a country where our rights are enshrined on paper, but an atmosphere of fear is created for those who have the audacity to actually try and exercise those rights. Name one protest that effectively challenged the misanthropic establishment that wasn't met with violence.

A good way to tell if a protest is legit or not, is to watch the police reaction to it.

I hope that people aren't fooled by all these petty "local ordinances", and minor annoyances being thrown out to muddy the waters, it's all a ruse thrown up by the people who are benefiting from the status quo. These same people are using every means at their disposal to defend their untenable position, from media manipulation, to exploiting the deep rifts ingrained in our society, to out and out heavy handed, jack-booted police oppression.

The people being protested against cannot set the terms and conditions of the protest. They love protests, it adds to the illusion of freedom, they're just not to keen on effective protests that actually threaten them.

reply to post by jlv70


The one thing which comes to my immediate attention is the "stay on the sidewalk" rule in Washington state clearly violates civil rights. Even the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the streets and sidewalks are public forums. So clearly those police officers which are pepper-spraying those on the streets and not allowing them to leave are infringing upon this right. This adds more fuel to the fire by detaining them without due cause.

It stinks and I hope people realize just how important this movement is. Perhaps law enforcement and public officials will learn the correct interpretation of the US Constitution. It's maddening and those in-power should be removed or remove themselves if they breach OUR Civil Rights.

It's just this simple.

Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939), the high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.

Clearly, as illustrated by Washington State, the "side-walk" rule is a clear violation of Constitutional Rights.

What gets me also, is that "why all of a sudden, are the police so willing to pepper-spray?" This is an assault to peace and if a crowd is being disorderly, diplomacy would suggest an approach to benign counter-measures as adding perhaps, horses / riders for crowd-control? Would this not have been more peaceful than outright spraying protesters in the street, being "moved" by a line of police officers?

IF, the streets are indeed public forums, as are side-walks, then protesting upon such is with-in the right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

AND, with protestors' right to not be arrested for disorderly conduct, as ruled by the case already mentioned in an earlier reply, would further support these facts.

OR, does this indicate a much-wider chasm between State's Sovereignty and the Federal Government and problems on-down the road? What happens when Federal governments cannot reconcile the States "it" is supposedly uniting? A "Big-Red" flag, in my own humble opinion. I hope I'm wrong. But...

The sad thing is, is that the police and the people giving orders to the police, know damn good and well what the law says and what our rights are, they just don't really care.

They assume they can run the show however they want, and rights and laws be damned, and that they will remain in positions where they'll never be held accountable for their actions.

Speaking of court decisions and laws here's one:

Nine environmental activists and an environmental group brought this action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the County of Humboldt, the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, Eureka City and its police department, and several individual officers, alleging that the officers' use of pepper spray on the activists' eyes and faces during three peaceful protests constituted an excessive use of force in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

Source:caselaw.findlaw.com...

reply to post by jlv70


Sadly, I agree. Authority these days, is seen as negative, dishonest, and not trust-worthy. A huge cognitive dissonant perception of the one which existed in the 1950's and 60's. An extreme worth noting. That makes me pause when I think of false ideology and perspective of social groups and how money plays a part, especially when "money" skews the perspective by equating the "value" of a person or groups to how-much of it they possess.

And that's just "Fiat." I don't know what else to call it, except that.

The Hague Case .--Illustrative of this expansion is Hague v. CIO, 221 in which the Court, though splintered with regard to reasoning and rationale, struck down an ordinance which vested an uncontrolled discretion in a city official to permit or deny any group the opportunity to conduct a public assembly in a public place. Justice Roberts, in an opinion which Justice Black joined and with which Chief Justice Hughes concurred, found protection against state abridgment of the rights of assembly and petition in the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ''The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.'' 222 Justices Stone and Reed invoked the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the result, thereby claiming the rights of assembly and petition for aliens as well as citizens. ''I think respodents' right to maintain it does not depend on their citizenship and cannot rightly be made to turn on the existence or non-existence of a purpose to disseminate information about the National Labor Relations Act. It is enough that petitioners have prevented respondents from holding meetings and disseminating information whether for the organization of labor unions or for any other lawful purpose.'' 223 This due process view of Justice Stone has carried the day over the privileges and immunities approach.

reply to post by PrimalRed


Not absolute, but relative. Let me ask how well is a constitutional right of assembly compared to marching or protesting in a financial business area or district? Certainly it can be argued that if a protest were conducted at a "general park area" it would be less toward the public good and welfare than the protest itself, in that particular venue? Venue is "relative," it seems.

This is much-like "Jesus throwing-over the merchant's tables in the temple?"

This whole-thing flies-in-the-face of the term called "Freedom." The cognitive dissonances which pervade our thinking today, makes many situations rife for dissent. Combine this with economical woes and it makes-for one damned-perfect storm.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


Its all relative. You have the right to assemble but not the right to take over (the park,street and everything else). Just like trespassing and Breaking and entering charges cannot be avoided by calling the behavior "protest". Our "freedom" has ALWAYS been relative and was never absolute.

reply to post by PrimalRed


Agreed. As it can be agreed-upon that assembly to express an idea is more descriptive to the "OWS" movement than rioting, as it is peaceful, in the intent. I would think "intent" would be the deciding factor rather than location.

Bottom line is that, if our founding fathers came back to current times to witness just how BADLY our rights have been TRAMPLED upon, there wouldnt be enough rope on hand for them to hang all the TRAITORS of this country.

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
Bottom line is that, if our founding fathers came back to current times to witness just how BADLY our rights have been TRAMPLED upon, there wouldnt be enough rope on hand for them to hang all the TRAITORS of this country.

edit on 23-11-2011 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)

Oh that is REAL good. i think if they came back it would be more like this.

George Mason- I told you I did not like the constitution, im STILL NOT GOING TO SIGN IT.

John Adams-"These Protesters are in violation of the Alien and Sedition Acts!! Arrest them!!"

Thomas Jefferson-"Women can WHAT??!!! Oh, that's funny guys "

James Madison- "Excuse me Mr. Biden, It appears one of your slaves is wearing one of your suits and sitting at your desk. "

James Monroe- "Women can what!!!!"

I think you get the idea...