Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#31

Post by harimau777 »

hirundo wrote: post #25
unlinked_dll wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point of protest is to disrupt however. Limiting the ability of a peaceful assembly to be disruptive effectively neuters that assembly.

What would be an example of limiting a peaceful assembly in a way that neuters it? Would you consider blocking a road to be peaceful? I wouldn't. If it were only about limiting a disruptive message, I'd agree, but it's not clear that's what you mean.

What about Occupy Wall Street? In order to be successful they needed to put continuous pressure on the financial district. Authorities forced them to disband by closing the park at night. Since protests (and social movements in general) rely on momentum, this effectively neutered the protest.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#32

Post by hirundo »

harimau777 wrote: post #31
hirundo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be an example of limiting a peaceful assembly in a way that neuters it? Would you consider blocking a road to be peaceful? I wouldn't. If it were only about limiting a disruptive message, I'd agree, but it's not clear that's what you mean.

What about Occupy Wall Street? In order to be successful they needed to put continuous pressure on the financial district. Authorities forced them to disband by closing the park at night. Since protests (and social movements in general) rely on momentum, this effectively neutered the protest.

There were a lot of reports of health issues in Zuccotti Park, e.g. "like an open sewer—with people urinating and defecating in public." At some point that becomes a hazard to people beyond the protesters. Mitigating that hazard by banning overnight camping, so that it can be cleaned, does not seem oppressive if enforced in a content neutral way. It's hard to see how the city can do that job well while tents are pitched all over.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#33

Post by lawlessquestion »

grecy wrote: post #19
lawlessquestion wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better that then the successful plaintiff being left holding the bag when their civil rights are horrifically violated. Excessive force cases can and do result in death and disability not including whatever mental trauma. Better the people that the state that employs law enforcement bear the cost associated with their actions, then victims of civil rights violations are unable to collect against a bankrupt defendant.

[flagged]

Use your right to bear arms to defend your right to assemble.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#34

Post by gdhbcc »

Kalium wrote: post #4
grecy wrote: post #3

Assembling peacefully is OK in the USA, unless the authorities don't like it, then it's not OK. Like Occupy wall street when loads of people were arrested just for assembling.[1] Of course, there's always the classic "arrested for resisting arrest" [2] too. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arr... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDsO5R8Xr0 Even when you know the law, and follow it very clo…

It's important to remember that even fundamental rights are subject to things like time, place, and manner restrictions. The right to free speech does not generally include doing so at 150Db at 2am in a residential neighborhood. It also sometimes includes restrictions like not blocking public right-of-ways while assembling in public. Freedom of religion does not extend to freedom to engage in the practice of human sa…

If it can be subject to restrictions then it is simply not a fundamental right, it is merely a privilege.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#35

Post by ajmurmann »

grecy wrote: post #11
lawlessquestion wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights. The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer…

[flagged]

You forgot the part where it's not only not their money, but in fact our money.

How public officials get "punished" is one of my biggest issues. We are right now holding them to a lower standard whereas we should hold them to a much higher standard. If a public official, especially in law enforcement, commits a crime it's a much bigger problem because it undermined the entire system beyond just the crime itself. This should result in draconic punishments for even small crimes.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#36

Post by harimau777 »

throwawaysea wrote: post #26
Ididntdothis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the big risk with infrastructure being privatized. The big tech companies can shut down things they don’t want to see in public. Now imagine roads being fully privatized. Yes, you can assemble somewhere but the owners of the roads can make sure that nobody gets there.

Thinking out loud here, but I don’t think this is as real a risk as it may first appear to be. In most cases I think the owners of the road would rightfully make sure their property is used per their rules. But if we had a society-wise protest (like in Hong Kong), the general laws/rules would be ignored anyways and not much changes between the public and private scenarios. The problem with today’s protests in America…

My understanding is that in most if not all social movements only a small, radical minority actually protests. However, I don't think that invalidates the protests or makes them any less important. Maybe that's just how it works: The role of the most radical sect of a movement is to create the momentum that allows the more moderate expressions of the movement to be implemented.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#37

Post by mistermann »

lawlessquestion wrote: post #33
grecy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Use your right to bear arms to defend your right to assemble.

This seems less optimal than simply not denying people their rights in the first place. Are you opposed to that idea for some reason?

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#38

Post by unlinked_dll »

hirundo wrote: post #25
unlinked_dll wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point of protest is to disrupt however. Limiting the ability of a peaceful assembly to be disruptive effectively neuters that assembly.

What would be an example of limiting a peaceful assembly in a way that neuters it? Would you consider blocking a road to be peaceful? I wouldn't. If it were only about limiting a disruptive message, I'd agree, but it's not clear that's what you mean.

I'd absolutely consider that to be peaceful. Dr. King didn't get a permit for road closures when he led the march from Selma to Montgomery. Or when the Teamsters joined with the NFLPA to block access to stadiums during the players' strike, or when unions form picket lines.

In a similar vein, possibly the most successful and iconic protests in American history (the Million-Man march, the Freedom Riders, the Memphis sit-ins, etc) during the Civil Rights movement did so precisely because they disrupted everyday life (like sitting at a diner, riding public transit, getting to work).

For a protest to be successful it has to be provocative and disruptive. Peaceful means without violence, it doesn't mean without provocation.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#39

Post by __david__ »

hirundo wrote: post #25
unlinked_dll wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point of protest is to disrupt however. Limiting the ability of a peaceful assembly to be disruptive effectively neuters that assembly.

What would be an example of limiting a peaceful assembly in a way that neuters it? Would you consider blocking a road to be peaceful? I wouldn't. If it were only about limiting a disruptive message, I'd agree, but it's not clear that's what you mean.

I would consider that “peaceful”. Annoying, especially if it’s for a cause I don’t care about or actively oppose, but still peaceful.

Re: America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly

#40

Post by hirundo »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #38
hirundo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be an example of limiting a peaceful assembly in a way that neuters it? Would you consider blocking a road to be peaceful? I wouldn't. If it were only about limiting a disruptive message, I'd agree, but it's not clear that's what you mean.

I'd absolutely consider that to be peaceful. Dr. King didn't get a permit for road closures when he led the march from Selma to Montgomery. Or when the Teamsters joined with the NFLPA to block access to stadiums during the players' strike, or when unions form picket lines. In a similar vein, possibly the most successful and iconic protests in American history (the Million-Man march, the Freedom Riders, the Memphis si…

If I'm trying to get from point A to point B, but can't because a man is standing in my right-of-way and won't move, and there's no easy way to go around, I would consider that man to be disrupting the peace regardless of whether he was Martin Luther King or the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The righteousness of his message doesn't enter into it.

If you disagree with this, do you also think that having the road blocked by a Klan rally should be considered peaceful?

Post reply on HN