| cabo35 |
06-07-2011 09:49 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taj44
(Post 360175)
It is not standard operating procedure to "segregate" protesters. In certain circumstances, it may be necessary to keep a sidewalk, street, or walkway clear so people uninvolved in the protest have room to pass by. In the case of the President of the United States, there are understandably security issues as well.
From Wikipedia: First specifically guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, freedom of assembly has since been recognized throughout the world as a fundamental human right. It was included in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, Article 20 of which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." Numerous other human rights conventions throughout the world have also included freedom of assembly.
Freedom of assembly, however, is not absolute. Most constitutional or legal provisions regarding this right specify that only peaceful assemblies are protected. Permits are sometimes required for assemblies in public places, and noise and traffic issues also limit the exercise of this right. Police are often authorized by law to disperse any crowd which threatens public safety. However, bureaucracies can abuse this power to prevent or disrupt assemblies that express unpopular political views or unorthodox religious ideas.
In this case, you had a small group of 60+ year olds wearing "Vote Democratic" tee shirts, and a few of them had some signs. They were not blocking traffic or disrupting the public in any way, nor did they constitute a security risk. This was clearly a violation of First Amendment rights and an abuse of power. Many of us in The Villages find that embarrassing, particularly when it was recorded by the media and printed in a variety of media outlets.
This is not about "politics" or whether you like Scott or not, it is about our basic right of assembly and free speech, something that is part of the fabric of our nation's history. To have The Villages look like some medieval police state is embarrassing.
|
NJblue has it right. While the police have an obligation to protect First Amendment Rights, concurrently, they also have an obligation to ensure public safety and orderly assemblies. SOP generally calls for a meeting with the protesting groups at the first evidence of such a gathering. It is SOP to define the ground rules in order to facilitate legitimate peaceful protest. It is not inconsistent with operating procedure to establish assembly areas for the protesters that will not impede the ingress and egress of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or create confrontation opportunities that would threaten the protesters or those who do not share their views. Freedom of speech and assembly does not mean protesters have carte blanche and can march onto the speakers platform or the gazebo with their signs during an address while seeking cover under the First Amendment. Ground rules need to be established and the courts consistently uphold police decision making in these circumstances. Further, in some cases minor details such as no signs on any type of stanchion may be defined as a ground rule for obvious reasons.
The copious reporting focusing on the protesters gives direct evidence that their rights were not trampled, crushed or suppressed. In fact, they arguably got more coverage than the Governor's message. "Abuse of power"? I think not. "First Amendment violation" ? Only through the prism of those with predisposed bias.
I am surprised at some of the narrow minded, agenda driven criticism of law enforcement and the handling of security at this event. Then again..........it is absolutely your right to express it..........as it is mine to take exception to it. |
