Harvard at Yale Football Game Protest

[SHUHoopsFan]

By suffering consequences I meant going to jail, fined, kicked out of school, etc. Like some here are recommending.

I doubt any protesters are suffering because a random person "hates" the protest. They probably just feel bad for people who are so irrationally angry.

They ran onto a football field during a game illegally. Jail is a potential consequence of trespassing. You can't protest anywhere you want. If someone breaks into your home illegally because they think you're using up too much energy with your microwave are they not subject jail time? They still broke into your home whether or not they think they have good reason or a moral responsibility to save the planet. You may choose not to have them prosecuted, others reserve the right to prosecute.

 

[SPK145]

By your logic you should be arrested for protesting on a sidewalk that I and millions of others paid taxes for to walk on.

Correct, you don't have the right to block sidewalks and streets that others are trying to use.

 

[HALL85]

If you're "suffering consequences" from protesting doesn't that inherently mean you aren't free to protest?

You’re making a silly argument here. If you protest and infringe on the rights of others at the same time you have to deal with those consequences. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[shuvrp]

Correct, you don't have the right to block sidewalks and streets that others are trying to use.

You can be asked to move aside if you are blocking the side walk. You can protest all you want though. People on main street near me protesting all the time for one thing or another.

 

[shuvrp]

Like I said earlier, you’re free to protest whatever you want wherever you want.

If you protest and infringe on the rights of others at the same time you have to deal with those consequences. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I understand that concept perfectly well. But you're not "free to protest whatever you want wherever you want." Do you see the contradiction?

free
adjective

1. not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes

2. not or no longer confined or imprisoned.

 

[HALL85]

I understand that concept perfectly well. But you're not "free to protest whatever you want wherever you want." Do you see the contradiction?

free
adjective

1. not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes

2. not or no longer confined or imprisoned.

You’re wrong but it’s not worth arguing about it.

 

[SPK145]

You can be asked to move aside if you are blocking the side walk. You can protest all you want though. People on main street near me protesting all the time for one thing or another.

Not ”asked” as that implies that you can say no. You do, you get arrested.

 

[shu09]

I understand that concept perfectly well. But you're not "free to protest whatever you want wherever you want." Do you see the contradiction?

free
adjective

1. not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes

2. not or no longer confined or imprisoned.

The irony here is the world will become much less free if these people get their way.

 

[Stevie_H]

I just need to know if the police played the Law & Order Chime when they placed Sam Waterston in zip tie cuffs. You HAVE to in that situation. It's perfect opportunity missed if they didn't.

 

[Pirata]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from enacting legislation that would abridge the right of the people to assemble peaceably.[1] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this prohibition applicable to state governments.[2]

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly.[3] The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”[6]

Such time, place, and manner restrictions can take the form of requirements to obtain a permit for an assembly.[7] The Supreme Court has held that it is constitutionally permissible for the government to require that a permit for an assembly be obtained in advance.[8] The government can also make special regulations that impose additional requirements for assemblies that take place near major public events.[9]

In the United States, the organizer of a public assembly must typically apply for and obtain a permit in advance from the local police department or other local governmental body.[10] Applications for permits usually require, at a minimum, information about the specific date, time, and location of the proposed assembly, and may require a great deal more information.[11] Localities can, within the boundaries established by Supreme Court decisions interpreting the First Amendment right to assemble peaceably, impose additional requirements for permit applications, such as information about the organizer of the assembly and specific details about how the assembly is to be conducted.[12]

The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order.[13] Statutes that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment.[14]

 

[afghan whigs]

Not all heroes wear capes