Police arrest 400 at U.S. Capitol in protest of money in politics

[PLC1]

Police arrest 400 at U.S. Capitol in protest of money in politics

Police arrested more than 400 protesters outside the U.S. Capitol on Monday from Democracy Spring, an organization seeking to remove big money from politics and combat restrictive voter identification laws.

The mostly calm and orderly demonstration resulted in arrests for what the U.S. Capitol Police called "unlawful demonstration activity" such as crowding and obstruction.

This despite:

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.

unlawful demonstration activity

 

[dogtowner]

Yeah those two get stomped a lot

 

[pwarbi]

Isn't demonstrating against money in politics a bit of a waste of time? I'm all for freedom of speach and people being able to share their views, but you'd have thought that even they themselves would realise that demonstrating against certain issues such as this isn't really going to change anything?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Police arrest 400 at U.S. Capitol in protest of money in politics




This despite:

They went there with the intent of creating a situation where they would get arrested. There are rules as to how one can legally protest you know.

http://www.democracyspring.org/faq

 

[Drumpfreal]

This is a pretty messed up situation. Basically what it's come down to is the people having the right to assemble only when the government sees fit. They can twist anything to be obstruction. I'm not sure the current system of having special interest groups funding campaigns will change any time in the near future.

 

[PLC1]

This is a pretty messed up situation. Basically what it's come down to is the people having the right to assemble only when the government sees fit. They can twist anything to be obstruction. I'm not sure the current system of having special interest groups funding campaigns will change any time in the near future.

It will take a lot more assembling (peacefully) and seeking of redress of grievances (all legal and constitutional, BTW) before anything changes.

 

[dogtowner]

while there is such a thing as a "free speech zone" nothing changes.

FSZ courtesy of the Donkey Party

 

[pwarbi]

People might have the right to free speach and to protest, but that's different to something actually being done about what they're protesting about. I can't see the politicians and congress turning round and agreeing anytime soon anyway, put it that way...

 

[Old_Trapper70]

while there is such a thing as a "free speech zone" nothing changes.

FSZ courtesy of the Donkey Party

LOL, you consistently insist on showing your own ignorance of reality. Democrats? From your own article:

"Though free speech zones existed prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush, it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.[3] These zones have continued through the presidency of Barack Obama; he signed a bill in 2012 that expanded the power of the Secret Service to restrict speech and make arrests"

Notice to the more ignorant, Bush expanded the concept of the FSZ, and then Obama expanded the power of enforcement.

Now, here is the Supreme Court decision relating to the issue:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

 

[dogtowner]

And the donkeys invented them.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

And the donkeys invented them.

Well, at least it wasn't an ignorant ass like you.

 

[dogtowner]

Well, at least it wasn't an ignorant ass like you.

Good, glad you see that your prior rant was silly.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Good, glad you see that your prior rant was silly.

No little doggy, your rant about how it was created by the Democrats was what was "silly", and pretty much asinine.

 

[dogtowner]

No little doggy, your rant about how it was created by the Democrats was what was "silly", and pretty much asinine.

No true and you try to dodge with gop had them too.
Why did the dems think they were OK to have at all ?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

No true and you try to dodge with gop had them too.
Why did the dems think they were OK to have at all ?

Probably for the same reason Bush expanded them. But hey, you haven't shown where it was the Dems that did it first. Now, it is true that Universities were using "free speech zones" both to protect the protester, and prevent disruption on the campuses, however, that is not a Dem, or Repugnant, issue. It was actually another of your idols, GW Bush, that really installed the use of free speech zones for political reasons.

http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/html/whatis_fsp.html