(06-30-2020, 09:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think entering a gated private yard would definitely fall on the terrorizing side of the spectrum.
Then I fail to see why the presence of multiple homes within the same wall would change that perception.
(07-01-2020, 07:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think it is a reasonable restriction. The "end of the nose" in this case would be the property line. Protesting in the public space outside of a person's home is kind of like the annoying sibling going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" but they haven't touched the nose. When I think about the free speech/assembly protections of the First Amendment I can't see this sort of regulation meeting the strict scrutiny guidelines. If it can't meet those guidelines, then it isn't reasonable, IMHO.
Then we both agree that the protest outside the mayor's home was illegal and should not have been allowed to happen as it occurred within the property line.
As to the rest, I understand your point and agree it's Constitutionally sound. I still don't think that prohibiting protests outside of private residences would unduly restrict anyone's ability to protest against a person or thing.
(07-01-2020, 10:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is a point that is getting lost in the argument.
Protesting should only be done to get a person to exercise their authority as either an elected official or a corporate executive. There should not be any mass protests just because an actor says something people don't like.
I agree, but that falls under the same Constitutional rights as protesting outside someone's home. What should not happen and what actually happens are often wildly different
(07-01-2020, 10:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: "Blue checkmark crowd" is a shot at people who have been verified by Twitter. Doesn't eman "blue vs red". It is being used a lot (not sure if this what SSF meant) because so many "famous" people have the check mark. Donald Trump is part of that "crowd". Now that includes people on both sides of the political spectrum but conservatives feel social media is biased and unfair against them so they attack the platforms and other users even as they use it themselves.
Twitter is a cesspool of gestalt group think. Literally one of the worst inventions in human history just ahead of circus peanuts candy. The Twitter CEO publicly stated that his moderators have a liberal bias, so conservatives aren't making that up. I almost never use social media so I couldn't care less, but Twitter is clearly not an equal opportunity platform where rules are fairly and evenly applied.
(07-01-2020, 10:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Ahh, I see.
I still think SSF would want the same rules to apply to both sides.
(07-01-2020, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then we both agree that the protest outside the mayor's home was illegal and should not have been allowed to happen as it occurred within the property line.
But if the mayors neighbors who live in the same gated neighborhood want to protest outside her home it would be fine, right?
They would all be on their own private property then.
(07-01-2020, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But if the mayors neighbors who live in the same gated neighborhood want to protest outside her home it would be fine, right?
They would all be on their own private property then.
As I see it, the only place they could protest would be the common access road, as entering her surveyed property, would be illegal. But then we run into are folks allowed to protest on roads and impede traffic.
Seems we all should agree that protests should occur on public property that does not infringe upon another's rights
(07-01-2020, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But if the mayors neighbors who live in the same gated neighborhood want to protest outside her home it would be fine, right?
They would all be on their own private property then.
That's a good question to which I don't have an immediate answer. It does indicate that the actual protesters had no business being there though.
(07-01-2020, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then I fail to see why the presence of multiple homes within the same wall would change that perception.
If we did less tests we'd have less positive results.
If we had fewer cameras we'd have fewer example of bad cops.
BREAKING: Fort Lauderdale police officers thought their body cameras were off when they laughed and joked about shooting protesters with rubber bullets. “Did you see me f**k up those motherf****rs?” one said to laughter. https://t.co/Cmgox50nns w/ @Blaskey_S
(06-30-2020, 02:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So could you please just stop making stuff up. It makes it difficulut to have a serious conversation about an issue when yuou refuse to even address what people actually say.
Ok, Fred.
(06-30-2020, 02:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You missed the important part of the post: that this is something that has been happening for a long time and, unfortunately, has to be expected if you enter into politics or put yourself in the public eye.
I would agree with your sentiment. The point I was making was that Dino was (correctly) pointing out that it is something you have to expect when you enter into the public eye.
Agreed, but the Constitution allows for peaceable assembly and so if they are on public property and not a threat to public safety, then they have the right to be there.
I support the right to protest in front of people's homes if they are on public property and not a threat to public safety because that is a civil liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. You have a problem with it? Take it up with the framers.
Aren't we in an era where "it's unfortunate, but it's been happening for a long time" is not an acceptable reason? I thought the whole purpose of these protests going on was to end shitty things happening to you being "something you have to expect".
Constitutionally you are correct, but morally? Just because you're legally allowed to do something doesn't mean you *should* do something...
Quote:Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
...but the majority of our nation has agreed that though it's Constitutionally legal, it's not good and it is shunned and actively discouraged, people get fired for it.
Just saying that my belief is that we should leave people's private houses alone. Not because we Constitutionally have to, but because we should.
(06-30-2020, 06:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: From a strictly constitutional standpoint? Yes.
(07-02-2020, 01:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know more than that personally. Quit your soft racism of treating blacks people as a homogeneous collective.
LOL sure. I literally meant 7.
Treating any racially defined group as a "homogenous collective" could indicate any kind of racism, even "hard," but probably not in reference to polls and voting behavior. At this moment, when Dino is worried about keeping his thread open and we are all worried about keeping the forum, it may not be a good time to accuse anyone of any kind of racism.
(07-02-2020, 08:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: If we did less tests we'd have less positive results.
If we had fewer cameras we'd have fewer example of bad cops.
BREAKING: Fort Lauderdale police officers thought their body cameras were off when they laughed and joked about shooting protesters with rubber bullets. “Did you see me f**k up those motherf****rs?” one said to laughter. https://t.co/Cmgox50nns w/ @Blaskey_S
Some of the most crucial evidence against the officer who killed Brooks is statements he made in the parking lot that were captured on other officers' body cams. At one point another officer tells him to stop talking with the cameras on.
(07-02-2020, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL sure. I literally meant 7.
Treating any racially defined group as a "homogenous collective" could indicate any kind of racism, even "hard," but probably not in reference to polls and voting behavior. At this moment, when Dino is worried about keeping his thread open and we are all worried about keeping the forum, it may not be a good time to accuse anyone of any kind of racism.
Perhaps don't engage in that type of conduct then? People often don't see their own misconduct, sometimes it helps to have it pointed out by others.
Quote:Strong support for Trump among LA LEOs?
As opposed to the Dems? You don't see a lot of strong support for law enforcement from the Democratic Party right now. Quite the opposite in most cases.
(07-02-2020, 12:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Aren't we in an era where "it's unfortunate, but it's been happening for a long time" is not an acceptable reason? I thought the whole purpose of these protests going on was to end shitty things happening to you being "something you have to expect".
Constitutionally you are correct, but morally? Just because you're legally allowed to do something doesn't mean you *should* do something...
...but the majority of our nation has agreed that though it's Constitutionally legal, it's not good and it is shunned and actively discouraged, people get fired for it.
Just saying that my belief is that we should leave people's private houses alone. Not because we Constitutionally have to, but because we should.
Would I protest at someone's private residence? No. I would advise against it, even. But it's a legal and constitutionally protected act. As for that part in bold, though, trying to compare those situations is pretty rough. The protests are about black people not receiving due process under the law. Their right to life being stripped of them without the same constitutionally guaranteed protections as white people. They are protesting the loss of their constitutional rights, not just being made uncomfortable by people yelling outside their home. What they are doing may be a shitty thing, but what they are protesting about goes far beyond that.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-02-2020, 02:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Would I protest at someone's private residence? No. I would advise against it, even. But it's a legal and constitutionally protected act. As for that part in bold, though, trying to compare those situations is pretty rough. The protests are about black people not receiving due process under the law. Their right to life being stripped of them without the same constitutionally guaranteed protections as white people. They are protesting the loss of their constitutional rights, not just being made uncomfortable by people yelling outside their home. What they are doing may be a shitty thing, but what they are protesting about goes far beyond that.
I completely agree with you, although I would still back a law banning protesting in from of private residences as stated earlier. I just wish the same courtesy and consideration was given to the people protesting the gun control laws in VA or showing up to protest, lawfully, at the state capital in MI. For some reason those two groups were tarred as radical extremists and worse. Both groups were at the state capital, not in front of someone's private residence.
(07-02-2020, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree with you, although I would still back a law banning protesting in from of private residences as stated earlier. I just wish the same courtesy and consideration was given to the people protesting the gun control laws in VA or showing up to protest, lawfully, at the state capital in MI. For some reason those two groups were tarred as radical extremists and worse. Both groups were at the state capital, not in front of someone's private residence.
I am really most familiar with the VA protests. There were threats of violence that had occurred that caused the emergency declaration and the rule put in place that firearms could not be carried onto capitol grounds. I know there is a lot of doubt from some of the pro-2A folks about that, but there were legitimate concerns. Now, there was quite the mix going on in that crowd. Alex Jones in a vehicle with Info Wars plastered all over it, plenty of boogaloo kits out and about, and some other things definitely did not help that image. But that wasn't everyone, and many people from the VCDL tried hard to convince people not to come like that. Then they showed up with a guillotine. That was such a shit show all around.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-02-2020, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just wish the same courtesy and consideration was given to the people protesting the gun control laws in VA or showing up to protest, lawfully, at the state capital in MI. For some reason those two groups were tarred as radical extremists and worse. Both groups were at the state capital, not in front of someone's private residence.
The only ones I have problems with are the ones that carried guns.
The guns served no purpose other than intimidation.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
