Woman gets arrested for reading The Constitution

[kola]

I think that is crap. If no one is on the sidewalk you are not blocking anything. You should only have to move if you are in someones way.

I think it would be cool to march around like the Nazis did. Get some Gestapo outfits and march the streets.

Kola 

[EthanAllen]

What I suspect really happened was that the pro-Iraqi-liberation folks had applied for and received a public gathering permit for that location for their demonstration, and this individual was probably removed by the police after being asked to leave by the holders of the permit.

I haven't watched the video yet but I've read a few articles about this.  I'm pretty sure that's what happened.  Or . . . she might have been arrested for a demonstration without a permit.  The Patriot Act (?) initiated quite a few more regulations required for public demonstrations. 

In a public gathering (right to assemble) that requires a permit to use a right of way in a manner that would disturb the free flow of people (like a permit to use the streets), if the group has a speaker and others are trying to listen, a counter protester can't stand there with a cheer leading megaphone and shout the other speaker down.

the police are acting rightfully by removing the individual shouting down the speaker.

[EthanAllen]

It is my take (like I previously assumed) that the ladies were yelling out and disrupting the speeches. IMO that is not proper. I am a hardcore beliver in free speech but not when it violates others to speak out and exercise their same rights...even if the other folks are treasonic assholes.

I think the title of the topic/article is a bit misleading. Yes, she/they were reciting the Constitution but they were also disruptive. There is a price to pay for "civil disobee".   

Hey, you got it exactly right for once!

[EthanAllen]

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not give you freedom. All people are inherently free. The CP ladies have the right to stand and protest anywhere they want so long as they are not on private property. The video doesn't show if they were or they were not. What it does show is that they were told by police that they could stand there quietly holding signs. They didn't remain quiet so they were arrested.

Do they have the right to make a disturbance? Depends on whether or not it was a public arena or private property and they were party crashers. It seems only logical that it was a public debate and anyone could walk in freely so it was in fact a public forum and they are entitled to speak just like anyone else present.

If you are exercising your freedom of speech rights on common right of ways you have to keep moving - even if there is no one on the sidewalk - so as to not infringe on any other individual's equal right.

If you are exercising your freedom of speech rights you can't infringe on anyone else's. You can't shout down a speaker at a public event.

[kola]

It is my take (like I previously assumed) that the ladies were yelling out and disrupting the speeches. IMO that is not proper. I am a hardcore beliver in free speech but not when it violates others to speak out and exercise their same rights...even if the other folks are treasonic assholes.

I think the title of the topic/article is a bit misleading. Yes, she/they were reciting the Constitution but they were also disruptive. There is a price to pay for "civil disobee".   

Hey, you got it exactly right for once!

Umm..yeah..umm thanks Ethan.

Now blow it out yur ass! LOL!

Kola   

[EthanAllen]

It is my take (like I previously assumed) that the ladies were yelling out and disrupting the speeches. IMO that is not proper. I am a hardcore beliver in free speech but not when it violates others to speak out and exercise their same rights...even if the other folks are treasonic assholes.

I think the title of the topic/article is a bit misleading. Yes, she/they were reciting the Constitution but they were also disruptive. There is a price to pay for "civil disobee".   

Hey, you got it exactly right for once!

Umm..yeah..umm thanks Ethan.

Now blow it out yur ass! LOL!

Kola   

back at ya buddy!

[David]

<At the Jefferson Memorial on Sept. 20, the Code Pink people were allowed to congregate outside the memorial, singing and wearing shirts that read "Stop funding the war." She said they were then told they could not be inside the memorial with a shirt that had words on it. But many people had shirts with words on them, from college names to music names. One Code Pink person was arrested for having a "No War" shirt and was in custody for seven hours before the case was dropped, Siemion said.>
You're right, there never will be a law that limits free speech.  -I write this dripping with sarcasm-
It is nice of you Mvpel to bring up Dr. King, I guess the civil rights march over the bridge, I think in Selma, that was without a lawful permit and actually prohibited by a judge, means it is okay to arrest a bunch of people, because they didn't follow a blantanly immoral law.  -more dripping sarcasm-
The constitution be damned, at this point in the game the fight is about morality, and right versus wrong.  The black americans who marched had a God given right to march, because it is their rights that were being taken, not the damn gov'ts 'rights'.  Some of you don't like the 'liberal' code pink ladies?  Consider this, they are supporting a war that they are opposed to, at the point of a gun.  It is their rights that are being infringed upon, not the neocons who evidently support the killing.  The worse thing the ladies did is interfere with the pro blow em' up crowd, who are all in favor of forcing the ladies to pay for their war.  I think the ladies interference is not the worst of evils. 

[EthanAllen]

there never will be a law that limits free speech.

There is no freedom of speech rights in collectively owned property not designated for that purpose like a legislative building where are elected representatives our to receive petitions for redress of grievances. There are freedom of speech rights on common right of ways on collectively owned roads (w/permit) and sidewalks.

I guess the civil rights march over the bridge, I think in Selma, that was without a lawful permit and actually prohibited by a judge, means it is okay to arrest a bunch of people, because they didn't follow a blantanly immoral law.

The blatant immorality was not granting them a permit to march on the common right of ways of collectively owned roads. The civil disobedience was against being denied a permit.

[lildog]

It's also wrong for them to claim that they were "arrested for reading the Constitution."

Very true... when a group claims they were "arrested for reading the Constitution" and then further bits and pieces of that story surface showing that there was more to it then just their reading the Constitution, it only hurts that group because it lessens their credibility.