On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:50:27 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:14:04 -0700, jps wrote:


Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Wonder if that'll filter up to the SCOTUS.


A federal judge Monday afternoon ordered Tennessee to stop enforcing
new rules that restricted “Occupy Nashville” demonstrators’ ability to
protest in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN).

“The state cannot arbitrarily create restrictive policies just because
it does not like how people are using a public space,” said ACLU-TN
Legal Director Tricia Herzfeld. “Today’s decision is the first step in
restoring demonstrators’ free speech rights.”

We probably have a better test case going on in Ft Myers. There is a
long standing law against camping in the park and pretty much anywhere
but a designated (zoned) camp ground within the city. You also need a
permit to do much more than visit the park and it closes at night.

It is going to be interesting when they try to make the case that
"camping" is "speech". If the protesters win, the result might be
chilling. It would say that if you have something to gripe about, you
can camp anywhere you want.

It does make me wonder how long these people would last in Lafayette
Park, right outside Obama's front door, in DC.

And I suppose I would be allowed to camp at Lake Anna State Park if I have a gripe or two.

Sounds good to me!

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:08:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:54:24 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 11/1/11 12:50 AM, wrote:

It does make me wonder how long these people would last in Lafayette
Park, right outside Obama's front door, in DC.


There are almost always demonstrators and protestors in that area, no
matter who is president. Some of the demonstrators are really wigged
out, though, with signs indicating their displeasure over the Soviet
domination of eastern Europe, even though that's been over for some time.

DC police, for the most part, are pretty tolerant of demonstrators. We
get lots of demonstrations and marches here.

I went to school on the 1700 block of G street. I know all about the
demonstrators in front of the white house but I guarantee you, if you
pitch a tent and refuse to move, you will be in a wagon. The rule in
front of the white house is you have to keep moving.

And the rule prohibiting tents there should apply in any of the non-camping public parks.

On 11/1/11 4:37 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:14:04 -0700, wrote:


Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Wonder if that'll filter up to the SCOTUS.


A federal judge Monday afternoon ordered Tennessee to stop enforcing
new rules that restricted “Occupy Nashville” demonstrators’ ability to
protest in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN).

“The state cannot arbitrarily create restrictive policies just because
it does not like how people are using a public space,” said ACLU-TN
Legal Director Tricia Herzfeld. “Today’s decision is the first step in
restoring demonstrators’ free speech rights.”

The protesters had been camped at Legislative Plaza in downtown
Nashville to protest the economic and political consolidation of power
since October 9.

But on October 27, Tennessee enacted new rules without any public
review process that eliminated their right to gather after 4:00 p.m.
and implemented a 10:00 pm curfew on the plaza. The state also
required protesters to pay use and security fees and to obtain
$1,000,000 in liability insurance coverage prior to engaging in any
assembly activity.

Those rules make damn good sense.

Shouldn't be any bitchin' about 'em either!

You would have been happy as an Aryan in Germany between 1935 and 1945...

On 11/1/2011 1:10 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/1/11 1:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:54:24 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 11/1/11 12:50 AM, wrote:

It does make me wonder how long these people would last in Lafayette
Park, right outside Obama's front door, in DC.


There are almost always demonstrators and protestors in that area, no
matter who is president. Some of the demonstrators are really wigged
out, though, with signs indicating their displeasure over the Soviet
domination of eastern Europe, even though that's been over for some
time.

DC police, for the most part, are pretty tolerant of demonstrators. We
get lots of demonstrations and marches here.

I went to school on the 1700 block of G street. I know all about the
demonstrators in front of the white house but I guarantee you, if you
pitch a tent and refuse to move, you will be in a wagon. The rule in
front of the white house is you have to keep moving.


It was a lot easier before Bush and 9-11 and Bush's fake war on terrorism.

Not to worry. Bab Bam is going to change things for you.

--
1-20-13 The end of an error

On 11/1/2011 4:37 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:14:04 -0700, wrote:


Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Wonder if that'll filter up to the SCOTUS.


A federal judge Monday afternoon ordered Tennessee to stop enforcing
new rules that restricted “Occupy Nashville” demonstrators’ ability to
protest in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN).

“The state cannot arbitrarily create restrictive policies just because
it does not like how people are using a public space,” said ACLU-TN
Legal Director Tricia Herzfeld. “Today’s decision is the first step in
restoring demonstrators’ free speech rights.”

The protesters had been camped at Legislative Plaza in downtown
Nashville to protest the economic and political consolidation of power
since October 9.

But on October 27, Tennessee enacted new rules without any public
review process that eliminated their right to gather after 4:00 p.m.
and implemented a 10:00 pm curfew on the plaza. The state also
required protesters to pay use and security fees and to obtain
$1,000,000 in liability insurance coverage prior to engaging in any
assembly activity.

Those rules make damn good sense.

Shouldn't be any bitchin' about 'em either!

A miliun dollas? I supose there goin ta ask there parunts to post da
bond, eh?
By the way, Have you heard specifically, what they are protesting?

--
1-20-13 The end of an error

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:15:09 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 10/31/11 10:43 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?

Who is John Gault.

If you had read the book, you'd know it was Galt, not Gault.

Supply siders who haven't a ****ing clue from whence they came.

Clueless, low information voter.

Glad to see the two of you wasting your time reading my drivel.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:28:24 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?

the productive people..ie the middle class...already pay the taxes.

the rich...beloved of the right...pay no taxes

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:43:23 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?

Who is John Gault.

an idiot invented by the moron ayn rand, who wrote fairy tales for
right wing children

On 11/1/11 7:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:15:09 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 10/31/11 10:43 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?

Who is John Gault.

If you had read the book, you'd know it was Galt, not Gault.

Supply siders who haven't a ****ing clue from whence they came.

Clueless, low information voter.

Glad to see the two of you wasting your time reading my drivel.



Atlas Shrugged is entirely too long, complex and dull a book for an
ex-marine who was posted stateside to read.

You seem to be the designated fill-in for Ingersoll, whose house was
damaged in the storm, and his now-obvious sockpuppet, iLoogy the
"non-boaterer."

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:28:24 -0600,
wrote:

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:
Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...
Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?

the productive people..ie the middle class...already pay the taxes.

the rich...beloved of the right...pay no taxes

Can you prove that? It's insane!

-HB (As seen on TV!)