StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 03:04 PM) I don't think it'd make it meaningless, i think it would just be an added exception. If you published sensitive state/military information knowing that our enemies would use it against us, I'd consider that treason. The wikileaks guy was pretty close IMO. I think you're missing the most important application of the 1st amendment speech rights: protection from government retaliation for speech against the government. I know you've moved to a hypothetical case, but I'd like to bring this back to the actual one. What you're saying here, that protected 1st amendment speech could be treasonous and allow the government to strip you of your citizenship, would still require a charge of treason and a trial. It wouldn't be a unilateral decision by the Executive to declare that you're no longer a citizen and then execute you. edit: I'm having a really hard time trying to make sense of a position that says you can lose your Constitutional rights by exercising them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) I'm not understanding your issue here. I'm saying treason could be proven through his words that are conceivably still subject to 1st amendment protection. You can't convict someone of treason for exercising constitutionally protected free speech rights. That would make said rights meaningless.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) How else could you lose your citizenship by swearing your loyalty to a foreign enemy? He never lost his US citizenship and there is no mechanism for doing so by calling for attacks on America, short of being tried for and found guilty of treason.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) That's a secondary issue to whether a traitor and enemy of the state loses his citizenship and therefore loses his rights under the Constitution. I agree the wording needs to be updated to include people like this (unaffiliated terrorists). If the thing being used to justify stripping him of his rights is him exercising said rights, you've got yourself a nice circular argument.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) There is a reasonable explanation...if for example someone was tweeting earlier in the day that they were going to march to location x, then that would be a reasonable response, since the police would know it was coming. I'm not sure if that was the case or not. They knew they were going to march across the bridge, and apparently the police told the protesters to remain on the pedestrian walkway. At some point, and this is where the dispute is, a small number of protesters in the front began to march on to the roadway. The police didn't stop them, and if warnings were given they were drowned out for anyone not in the immediate front. The protesters in the back see people being led on to the road by the police and follow without resistance. Halfway across, the police stop them at the front and cut them off from the back. The transportation workers union is suing the city for forcing their workers to drive the buses with prisoners.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 12:34 PM) Exactly #anarchynow You don't have to be left out, there's anarcho-capitalism, too!

Curious timing, they didn't need buses for the first two weeks but just happen to have them when they lead a bunch of people on to the bridge and arrest them...

Those protesters are just bound to do something illegal and violent any day now, better round them up and arrest them before they get the chance! #policestatesrule

Putting out a video calling for people to attack America is protected speech.

Awesome interview at #occupywallstreet with Chris Hedges

The big arrest came as a large group was crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. Protesters claimed that they were led into the traffic lanes by the police and then arrested. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/...s?newsfeed=true

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:52 AM) I don't know that he really believes that stuff. Most of that came about as he tried to get the attention of the GOP. In general he is very into state and individual rights, versus federal rights. He's a staunch social conservative on a variety of issues and introduced a bill to define life as beginning at conception.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:52 AM) I don't either, unless they create a problem for the public. I can create a "peaceful" protest in the middle of the Kennedy during rush hour, but I'm pretty sure I'd get arrested, and should be. There is more to determining a course of action with a crowd problem than just whether or not they are committing acts of violence. Protests that that inconvenience people aren't de facto illegal. The whole point is to cause disruption of the status quo.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:50 AM) Because it is a militant left wing protest, and not a tea party one. Peaceful protesters of any stripe should be allowed to congregate and demonstrate without fear of backlash or suppression by police.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:50 AM) Because it is a militant left wing protest, and not a tea party one. Yep, militant:

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:50 AM) That's actually supposed to be a common tactic of crowd control and dispersal of crowds. I don't like suppression of peaceful protests.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:40 AM) Intentions? Let me get this straight. Because there is evidence (if even that) that some cops acted badly There's actually pretty clear evidence in the form of video of a cop walking up to a protester standing there, macing them, and then walking away. And another video of a cop slamming a videographer into a car/the ground for filming them arresting someone else. They should plan for contingencies. Too often, they create said contingencies.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) Any large scale protest, you can and should assume that you may need to arrest busloads of people. That's exactly what the police should be doing, is being prepared for the worst contingencies. I applaud them for doing so. Eh I'm not going to trust their intentions after some of the stuff that's already gone down there and long histories of police running false-flag operations at protests to justify retaliation and arrests. edit: there's also a lot of allegations that the police intentionally rounded up a bunch of protesters on the bridge after escorting them there.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:23 AM) Why is that a problem? Far as I am concerned, that was the smart move. Because there was no reason to suspect that they'd need to arrest literal busloads of peaceful protesters?

partisan obamabot spotted

Bachmann blames Obama for the Arab Spring I didn't know some people considered the Arab Spring a bad thing?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 08:38 AM) I will be testing this app next week.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 2, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) good. i will be there. I'm going to be in DC this weekend. Might stop by to see what's going on there, they kick off on Thursday.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 2, 2011 -> 05:57 PM) doug buffone and ed obradovich is easily the worst postgame radio in the city. its just two old guys repeating "it wasnt like this back when i played" over and over in various different ways. It is just awful.

I still don't know what that's supposed to mean