StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You know, land of the free and all? But, hey, these are times of heightened security, so it's very understandable that the freedom to peacefully gather in protest of something should be abridged, right?

Okay, obviously, I've already made up my mind about the following story, but I wanted to get all y'all's opinions on it as well.

Dammit!

Libertarian factions must seize power in a bloodless coup!

Quick! Grab some pillows! All smothering!

...especially since the protest organizers gave the city little time to prepare.

I don't see a major problem. Stuff like that (and the story's a little unclear; was the rally tied to the march? 100,000 people would be a LOT) can pose security and logistical problems. What if someone smuggled a rocket launcher into the crowd and took a shot at the UN building from the crowd? That could get ugly. What if their march blocks streets? That could be a severe problem, one the city does not necessarily have to allow.

If they want to have their little peace march, they should do it elsewhere. When so many people are in one place, there's bound to be at least one maniac that will do something destructive, and that could pse a threat to important people.

sems to me they just want to prevent the UN from...well, exploding. not that i have any love for the UN, but i still wouln't want to see it blow up. that worries me, some islamist asshole blending into a peace rally and ba-boom.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:If they want to have their little peace march, they should do it elsewhere. When so many people are in one place, there's bound to be at least one maniac that will do something destructive, and that could pse a threat to important people.

Even with a small number this will still happen.

There's always a maniac. Hell, I'm tempted to go to the next anti-globalisation protest as part of the "crowd" and beat the shit out of the people who are dropping the ballbearings that break the police horses legs.

Not to mention the anarchist morons who are lobbing various low-grade incendiaries at the police lines.

Uraniun235 wrote:

...especially since the protest organizers gave the city little time to prepare.

I don't see a major problem. Stuff like that (and the story's a little unclear; was the rally tied to the march? 100,000 people would be a LOT) can pose security and logistical problems. What if someone smuggled a rocket launcher into the crowd and took a shot at the UN building from the crowd? That could get ugly. What if their march blocks streets? That could be a severe problem, one the city does not necessarily have to allow.

If this were a purely logistical issue, I could see that, but the article also mentions the whole "heightened security" issue. That's what got to me.

I don't think the organizers are naive enough to think that there is no way someone could conceivably take this opportunity to try and cause harm. While it is a plea for peace, it does also present ample opportunity for malice. But you know what? We're big kids now. We can make decisions we feel are right even though we know it could jeopardize our wellbeing. The freedom to make such a decision shouldn't be made for us by the government simply because this happens to be a somewhat worse time to be an American than others. I don't believe that this country was founded on the principle that only in times of absolute certainty that we're going to be really okay can we speak out against policies we disagree with, oh and by the way, the government will tell you when everything is okay.

There aren't enough details for me to decide either way. It's not like it's unprecedented that a rally be prohibited for security reasons, especially if, like the article says, the city was given little time to prepare.

That article is the text equivalent of a talking head. Could it be more vague?

Too vague to make a call. But there are a great many cases of protesters asking for permits with too little warning before the planned time, generally that' spelled out in law. I'd suspect this was the same.

Besides, we should keep in mind that while the government cannot silence freedom of expression due to constitutional guarantees, it can regulate the time and place of that expression.