An outstanding show of restraint and solidarity. At least former Chancellor Vanderhoef was viewed as a friend of the community. If this incident had occurred elsewhere, I wouldn't be so surprised. But the fact that it was ordered by the very administration that students and residents have trusted to maintain the Principles of Community which Davis students so proudly purport to stand for, is truly alarming. Didn't even know the City of Davis allowed pepper spray within city limits. I've read enough comments about how these kids "deserved" it. If you were charged an increasingly high amount for rapidly diminishing educational resources, you'd be angry, too.
I would love to know how many of these young idiots that don't have shit to do have parents who have ties to big banks and corporate america. I worked two jobs and went to college full time I was not sitting around waiting for someone to hold my hand all the way into the interview.
How did you manage to work two jobs and go to college yet stay so hopelessly out of touch? The employment rate of Occupy protesters has been reported to be between 75-85%, not entirely unrepresentative of the national unemployment rate right now. And, more importantly, no one is really out in the streets right now simply because they personally can't get a job. Anyone with any intuition or understanding of world events (the kind you can get from working or going to college) understand that the outrage is about curbing the balance of power in this country, which has been legislated by the 1% to crush the 99%. Even if you're fine with that balance of power, you have to at least acknowledge that that's what all the fuss is about.
Who says these kids aren't also working multiple campus jobs? I know I held several student positions as a UC undergrad. If you saw your campus Administration receive salary increases year after year while your own tuition fees increased, you'd be angry, too. I would be placated a little if the fee increases were implemented to maintain campus resources, but in fact, those very resources are being cut.
These students aren't rich brats, nor are they all sons of illegal immigrants. They're hard-working kids from middle and upper-middle class families, the majority of them White and Asian. A few of them have parents who work for banks, but I'm guessing the majority of them have parents who worked honest jobs to make sure their kids got into one of the most selective public institutions in the state of California. If you've never been to Davis, CA, you have no idea how strongly the residents value community and healthy dialogue. As a former resident, I'm deeply saddened by this incident which so horrifically violates the very principles that students and city residents alike worked so long to establish. This isn't Berkeley, NYC or Chicago. This is Davis; the bicycling capital of the USA, in which the most often committed crime is riding a bike at night without a proper light. You can have a picnic on the quad any damn day. Impromptu frisbee tournament, even. But as soon as the sentiment gets angry, the canisters are pulled out.
The police are not the enemy here.
Nor is the Chancellor.
It is quite interesting how the story has shifted considerably from a movement intent upon drawing attention to the excesses of Wall Street to a story about protesters vs. police. I'm not suggesting there is a grand conspiracy at play, but it seems clear that media outlets are far more comfortable (or perhaps simply more adept, since they have more experience) in covering the latter than they were the former.
The police are not the enemy here.
Nor is the Chancellor.
It is quite interesting how the story has shifted considerably from a movement intent upon drawing attention to the excesses of Wall Street to a story about protesters vs. police. I'm not suggesting there is a grand conspiracy at play, but it seems clear that media outlets are far more comfortable (or perhaps simply more adept, since they have more experience) in covering the latter than they were the former.
The media is all about sensationalism. What sells more papers/gets more hits on the Web; discussing Wall Street excess (again) or violence in the streets?
People still care about their First Amendment rights being violated?
Thank me later.
The First Amendment doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. There are probably hundreds of perfectly constitutional, content neutral laws that curb free speech based on time, place or manner. But those concepts are generally lost on people who think that constitutional just means "things I like" and unconstitutional "things I don't like."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If these protests were all christian fundamentalists "occupying" abortion clinics how would you feel about it?
If, by "occupy" you mean standing outside with signs peacefully protesting, this has been going on for years.
If by "occupy" I mean they stand 36 from the entrace or driveway and don't make a lot of noise during clinic hours (time/place/manner restrictions all found to be constitutional). But Occupy Wallstreet protesters, by comparison, have a right go wherever they want, whenever they want, and make as much noise as they want at all hours of the night and day. Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street, because why?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
sabadabada said:
barjesus said:
sabadabada said:
LaserWolf said:
Amendment I
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.
If these protests were all christian fundamentalists "occupying" abortion clinics how would you feel about it?
If, by "occupy" you mean standing outside with signs peacefully protesting, this has been going on for years.
If by "occupy" I mean they stand 36 from the entrace or driveway and don't make a lot of noise during clinic hours (time/place/manner restrictions all found to be constitutional). But Occupy Wallstreet protesters, by comparison, have a right go wherever they want, whenever they want, and make as much noise as they want at all hours of the night and day. Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street, because why?
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.
If these protests were all christian fundamentalists "occupying" abortion clinics how would you feel about it?
Fair question.
When this was a big issue and there was talk of a Clinic Access law, I was opposed to the law.
The law passed.
I am opposed to the law.
When Christian fundamentalists shut down clinics by peaceably protesting it is a problem.
But they did it all the time.
Courts found, repeatedly that they had that right.
Then congress stepped in and took that right away.
Here is what is allowed, and not allowed under the current law [wikipedia]:
Prohibited
The following behaviors have especially to do with reproductive health care clinics but can also be applied to places of worship[3][4]
Blocking a person???s access to the entrance of a facility
Impairing cars from entering and/or exiting a facility
Physically stopping people as they are trying to walk toward an entrance or through a parking lot
Making it difficult or dangerous to get in and/or out of a facility
Trespassing on the property of a facility
Committing any act of violence on a clinic employee, escort or patient
Vandalism
Threats of violence
Stalking a clinic employee or reproductive health care provider
Arson or threats of arson
Bombings or bomb threats
[edit] Not prohibited
The following behaviors are not prohibited because they are protected under the First Amendment right to free speech[3][4]
Protesting outside of clinics
Distributing literature
Carrying signs
Shouting (as long as no threats are made)
Singing hymns
I continue to believe that the first 2 prohibitions would not stand up to supreme court review.
Thank you for bringing this issue up, because it is one where I often find my views in the minority.
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.
If these protests were all christian fundamentalists "occupying" abortion clinics how would you feel about it?
If, by "occupy" you mean standing outside with signs peacefully protesting, this has been going on for years.
If by "occupy" I mean they stand 36 from the entrace or driveway and don't make a lot of noise during clinic hours (time/place/manner restrictions all found to be constitutional). But Occupy Wallstreet protesters, by comparison, have a right go wherever they want, whenever they want, and make as much noise as they want at all hours of the night and day. Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street, because why?
Your first question was; who still cares about this? The answer clearly is you.
As you know, the Freedom of Access to Clinics law applies to clinics and places of worship.
Best I know Occupy has not targeted either, so lets throw out that argument.
If you would like congress to pass a Freedom of Access to Banks law I am sure you can hire a lobbyist.
The rest of your argument is nonsense. No one has a right to do any of the things you say.
Take the people who have cared about their rights enough to have been pepper sprayed. None of them were: "Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street".
Go back. Take a deep breath. Find out what is really happening. Then try to come back with a rational reply.
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.
If these protests were all christian fundamentalists "occupying" abortion clinics how would you feel about it?
If, by "occupy" you mean standing outside with signs peacefully protesting, this has been going on for years.
If by "occupy" I mean they stand 36 from the entrace or driveway and don't make a lot of noise during clinic hours (time/place/manner restrictions all found to be constitutional). But Occupy Wallstreet protesters, by comparison, have a right go wherever they want, whenever they want, and make as much noise as they want at all hours of the night and day. Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street, because why?
Except that OWS protesters can't even occupy Wall St (let alone be 36' from it), Zuccotti Park is what 2 blocks away? And aren't there police checkpoints on Wall St. itself?
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.
If these protests were all christian fundamentalists "occupying" abortion clinics how would you feel about it?
If, by "occupy" you mean standing outside with signs peacefully protesting, this has been going on for years.
If by "occupy" I mean they stand 36 from the entrace or driveway and don't make a lot of noise during clinic hours (time/place/manner restrictions all found to be constitutional). But Occupy Wallstreet protesters, by comparison, have a right go wherever they want, whenever they want, and make as much noise as they want at all hours of the night and day. Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street, because why?
Your first question was; who still cares about this? The answer clearly is you.
As you know, the Freedom of Access to Clinics law applies to clinics and places of worship.
Best I know Occupy has not targeted either, so lets throw out that argument.
If you would like congress to pass a Freedom of Access to Banks law I am sure you can hire a lobbyist.
The rest of your argument is nonsense. No one has a right to do any of the things you say.
Take the people who have cared about their rights enough to have been pepper sprayed. None of them were: "Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street".
Go back. Take a deep breath. Find out what is really happening. Then try to come back with a rational reply.
1. Wrong. I really don't care.
2. The point wasn't which restrictions apply, merely that there are restrictions on the exercise of one's free speech that are constitutional.
3. You and I may know that nobody has the right to do those things, but apparently not all the members of the supposed "OWS movement" do, since all of those things have occured at OWS events. I'll leave out the overdoses, rapes, and physical and sexual abuses against women and minors, since it's probably not fair to assume they support those things even though they facilitate the environment that encourages them.
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.
If these protests were all christian fundamentalists "occupying" abortion clinics how would you feel about it?
If, by "occupy" you mean standing outside with signs peacefully protesting, this has been going on for years.
If by "occupy" I mean they stand 36 from the entrace or driveway and don't make a lot of noise during clinic hours (time/place/manner restrictions all found to be constitutional). But Occupy Wallstreet protesters, by comparison, have a right go wherever they want, whenever they want, and make as much noise as they want at all hours of the night and day. Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street, because why?
Your first question was; who still cares about this? The answer clearly is you.
As you know, the Freedom of Access to Clinics law applies to clinics and places of worship.
Best I know Occupy has not targeted either, so lets throw out that argument.
If you would like congress to pass a Freedom of Access to Banks law I am sure you can hire a lobbyist.
The rest of your argument is nonsense. No one has a right to do any of the things you say.
Take the people who have cared about their rights enough to have been pepper sprayed. None of them were: "Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street".
Go back. Take a deep breath. Find out what is really happening. Then try to come back with a rational reply.
1. Wrong. I really don't care.
2. The point wasn't which restrictions apply, merely that there are restrictions on the exercise of one's free speech that are constitutional.
3. You and I may know that nobody has the right to do those things, but apparently not all the members of the supposed "OWS movement" do, since all of those things have occured at OWS events. I'll leave out the overdoses, rapes, and physical and sexual abuses against women and minors, since it's probably not fair to assume they support those things even though they facilitate the environment that encourages them.
Since you brought up pro life protesters as a comparative group, I think we can both agree that while both groups have had members behave badly, only one of those groups encourages, and carries out shootings and bombings and murders.
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.
If these protests were all christian fundamentalists "occupying" abortion clinics how would you feel about it?
If, by "occupy" you mean standing outside with signs peacefully protesting, this has been going on for years.
If by "occupy" I mean they stand 36 from the entrace or driveway and don't make a lot of noise during clinic hours (time/place/manner restrictions all found to be constitutional). But Occupy Wallstreet protesters, by comparison, have a right go wherever they want, whenever they want, and make as much noise as they want at all hours of the night and day. Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street, because why?
Your first question was; who still cares about this? The answer clearly is you.
As you know, the Freedom of Access to Clinics law applies to clinics and places of worship.
Best I know Occupy has not targeted either, so lets throw out that argument.
If you would like congress to pass a Freedom of Access to Banks law I am sure you can hire a lobbyist.
The rest of your argument is nonsense. No one has a right to do any of the things you say.
Take the people who have cared about their rights enough to have been pepper sprayed. None of them were: "Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street".
Go back. Take a deep breath. Find out what is really happening. Then try to come back with a rational reply.
1. Wrong. I really don't care.
2. The point wasn't which restrictions apply, merely that there are restrictions on the exercise of one's free speech that are constitutional.
3. You and I may know that nobody has the right to do those things, but apparently not all the members of the supposed "OWS movement" do, since all of those things have occured at OWS events. I'll leave out the overdoses, rapes, and physical and sexual abuses against women and minors, since it's probably not fair to assume they support those things even though they facilitate the environment that encourages them.
Since you brought up pro life protesters as a comparative group, I think we can both agree that while both groups have had members behave badly, only one of those groups encourages, and carries out shootings and bombings and murders.
I already know what Sabadablabla's response will be to this???
Comments
Who says these kids aren't also working multiple campus jobs? I know I held several student positions as a UC undergrad. If you saw your campus Administration receive salary increases year after year while your own tuition fees increased, you'd be angry, too. I would be placated a little if the fee increases were implemented to maintain campus resources, but in fact, those very resources are being cut.
These students aren't rich brats, nor are they all sons of illegal immigrants. They're hard-working kids from middle and upper-middle class families, the majority of them White and Asian. A few of them have parents who work for banks, but I'm guessing the majority of them have parents who worked honest jobs to make sure their kids got into one of the most selective public institutions in the state of California. If you've never been to Davis, CA, you have no idea how strongly the residents value community and healthy dialogue. As a former resident, I'm deeply saddened by this incident which so horrifically violates the very principles that students and city residents alike worked so long to establish. This isn't Berkeley, NYC or Chicago. This is Davis; the bicycling capital of the USA, in which the most often committed crime is riding a bike at night without a proper light. You can have a picnic on the quad any damn day. Impromptu frisbee tournament, even. But as soon as the sentiment gets angry, the canisters are pulled out.
It wasn't always like this.
Nor is the Chancellor.
They are part of a coordinate effort to suppress and discredit the protests.
It is quite interesting how the story has shifted considerably from a movement intent upon drawing attention to the excesses of Wall Street to a story about protesters vs. police. I'm not suggesting there is a grand conspiracy at play, but it seems clear that media outlets are far more comfortable (or perhaps simply more adept, since they have more experience) in covering the latter than they were the former.
The media is all about sensationalism. What sells more papers/gets more hits on the Web; discussing Wall Street excess (again) or violence in the streets?
Don't fall for the okie doke.
Thank me later.
The First Amendment doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. There are probably hundreds of perfectly constitutional, content neutral laws that curb free speech based on time, place or manner. But those concepts are generally lost on people who think that constitutional just means "things I like" and unconstitutional "things I don't like."
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.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm
If these protests were all christian fundamentalists "occupying" abortion clinics how would you feel about it?
In the case of
IF vs students protesting in their own college peaceably
I find in favour of GTFOOHWTBS.
If, by "occupy" you mean standing outside with signs peacefully protesting, this has been going on for years.
If by "occupy" I mean they stand 36 from the entrace or driveway and don't make a lot of noise during clinic hours (time/place/manner restrictions all found to be constitutional). But Occupy Wallstreet protesters, by comparison, have a right go wherever they want, whenever they want, and make as much noise as they want at all hours of the night and day. Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street, because why?
Because of people like you.
Fair question.
When this was a big issue and there was talk of a Clinic Access law, I was opposed to the law.
The law passed.
I am opposed to the law.
When Christian fundamentalists shut down clinics by peaceably protesting it is a problem.
But they did it all the time.
Courts found, repeatedly that they had that right.
Then congress stepped in and took that right away.
Here is what is allowed, and not allowed under the current law [wikipedia]:
Prohibited
The following behaviors have especially to do with reproductive health care clinics but can also be applied to places of worship[3][4]
Blocking a person???s access to the entrance of a facility
Impairing cars from entering and/or exiting a facility
Physically stopping people as they are trying to walk toward an entrance or through a parking lot
Making it difficult or dangerous to get in and/or out of a facility
Trespassing on the property of a facility
Committing any act of violence on a clinic employee, escort or patient
Vandalism
Threats of violence
Stalking a clinic employee or reproductive health care provider
Arson or threats of arson
Bombings or bomb threats
[edit] Not prohibited
The following behaviors are not prohibited because they are protected under the First Amendment right to free speech[3][4]
Protesting outside of clinics
Distributing literature
Carrying signs
Shouting (as long as no threats are made)
Singing hymns
I continue to believe that the first 2 prohibitions would not stand up to supreme court review.
Thank you for bringing this issue up, because it is one where I often find my views in the minority.
:balla: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Part of the 1% ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :balla:
Your first question was; who still cares about this? The answer clearly is you.
As you know, the Freedom of Access to Clinics law applies to clinics and places of worship.
Best I know Occupy has not targeted either, so lets throw out that argument.
If you would like congress to pass a Freedom of Access to Banks law I am sure you can hire a lobbyist.
The rest of your argument is nonsense. No one has a right to do any of the things you say.
Take the people who have cared about their rights enough to have been pepper sprayed. None of them were: "Stop traffic, throw things at police and harass people that don't support them, break windows, interfere with people's lawful businesses, trespass on private property, piss and shit in the street".
Go back. Take a deep breath. Find out what is really happening. Then try to come back with a rational reply.
Except that OWS protesters can't even occupy Wall St (let alone be 36' from it), Zuccotti Park is what 2 blocks away? And aren't there police checkpoints on Wall St. itself?
OWS's Genesis
1. Wrong. I really don't care.
2. The point wasn't which restrictions apply, merely that there are restrictions on the exercise of one's free speech that are constitutional.
3. You and I may know that nobody has the right to do those things, but apparently not all the members of the supposed "OWS movement" do, since all of those things have occured at OWS events. I'll leave out the overdoses, rapes, and physical and sexual abuses against women and minors, since it's probably not fair to assume they support those things even though they facilitate the environment that encourages them.
Since you brought up pro life protesters as a comparative group, I think we can both agree that while both groups have had members behave badly, only one of those groups encourages, and carries out shootings and bombings and murders.
I already know what Sabadablabla's response will be to this???