Oppressed white farmers occupy federal building in Oregon

[SF1900]

And I will further expand on this, why does .gov get to decide which protest of redress of grievances is legal and which is not? The constitution contains the bill of rights, which are natural rights that .gov is constitutionally restricted from interfering with.

hmm, well, that is the thing, I don't know if there is a difference in terms of the law when it comes to how one occupies federal land during a protest. I don't know if there is a difference in terms of standing outside of a government building and protesting, as opposed to entering the government building and protesting. I admit, I do not know. I ASSUMED once you ENTERED the property of a building, it was breaking some sort of law, as opposed to standing outside. So, I admit, I do not know if there are nuances differences between the two. My initial assumptions may be wrong.

[Kazan]

Well, its a moot point, because I don't agree with black people or anyone blocking highways or stores that interfere with other people. A person's ability to protest ends when it affects another person's livelihood (getting to a job to earn a living to feed their family's, endangers their lives, etc.).

It's really not moot, since it was allowed to go on, .gov has by inaction endorsed it.

[SF1900]

It's really not moot, since it was allowed to go on, .gov has by inaction endorsed it.

Well, I meant a moot point to try and use that analogy with me, since I agree with you.

It may better well be served as an argument against 240, because he may disagree with you. 

[Kazan]

hmm, well, that is the thing, I don't know if there is a difference in terms of the law when it comes to how one occupies federal land during a protest. I don't know if there is a difference in terms of standing outside of a government building and protesting, as opposed to entering the government building and protesting. I admit, I do not know. I ASSUMED once you ENTERED the property of a building, it was breaking some sort of law, as opposed to standing outside. So, I admit, I do not know if there are nuances differences between the two. My initial assumptions may be wrong.

Well it depends on the circumstance I guess, since a federal building is public property then it is open to protest, now if a group tried to occupy a private business or residence they would be trespassing, if no consent from the property owner.

[SF1900]

Well it depends on the circumstance I guess, since a federal building is public property then it is open to protest, now if a group tried to occupy a private business or residence they would be trespassing, if no consent from the property owner.

Well, yes, I 100% agree that you cannot enter a private business or someone's home to protest, unless given permission. I think the law is quite clear on that. If you do, then you deserve all the consequences that come to you.

I found this:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-assembly

In sum, there is no unfettered right to protest on government property. Protests must be peaceable, and the government has the right to impose content-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on expression. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court said in Kokinda, “the government’s ownership of property does not automatically open that property to the public.”

The government has greater power to regulate expression when it acts as a proprietor controlling its internal operations than it does as a sovereign lawmaker. This means that government officials could limit protests inside a courthouse because the government has important operations to conduct. It must be able to control its operations to carry out its functions. The government must be able to carry on its own speech and expression free from interference. Contrast this with the public sidewalks two blocks from a courthouse. Here, the government cannot argue that it is conducting its own internal operations. Speech restrictions there would implicate a forum analysis and trigger a higher degree of judicial scrutiny.

The second point was already established between us, since a protest cannot interfere with the functioning of an individual.

[polychronopolous]

An American Hero

[_aj_]

An American Hero

Rolling with a derped-out '74 with no optics. Might want to upgrade to a legit overwatch rifle.

[timfogarty]

No, BLM is on-topic. If you're going to advocate deadly force against American citizens occupying government property, then it has to be consistently applied. Blocking a road = occupying an unoccupied building. Deal with it.

BLM is on topic.  My original title of this thread was BLM occupy federal building in Oregon for a reason, to point out the hypocrisy of the right.  Civil disobedience has it's place.  I've participated in it on more than one occasion. But a bunch of BLM protesters (or Occupation Wall Street) block an intersection, and right wing talk radio and cable news calls them terrorists.  Yet these white guys show up with their assault weapons and they're patriots.

As far as expect another Ruby or Waco, the last time Cliven Bundy's militia showed up with their assault weapons, the feds kept their distance.  If only they would do the same for BLM or OWS.

[timfogarty]

Well, its a moot point, because I don't agree with black people or anyone blocking highways or stores that interfere with other people. A person's ability to protest ends when it affects another person's livelihood (getting to a job to earn a living to feed their family's, endangers their lives, etc.).

you don't know anything about the history of the civil rights movement.  if it weren't for blocking highways and businesses, we'd still have Jim Crow laws.

but kind of hard to claim peaceable protest when you're caring assault weapons.  the purpose of terrorism is to intimidate others into your way of thinking.  what is the purpose of carrying assault weapons?

[_aj_]

you don't know anything about the history of the civil rights movement.  if it weren't for blocking highways and businesses, we'd still have Jim Crow laws.

 

Oh brother. You're REALLY comparing the BLM retards to the civil rights movement? Brother, you need to take a deep blunt and sit down.

[SF1900]

you don't know anything about the history of the civil rights movement.  if it weren't for blocking highways and businesses, we'd still have Jim Crow laws.

Stop being stupid.

So, youre okay with people blocking highways that preclude people from getting to their job? What if person X needs to get to their job to feed their family? And lets say this person doesn't make much, and missing one day of pay will determine if they put food on the table for their kids? You're okay with this? If you are, then you are a bigger idiot than the rest of the forum actually thinks, and this is coming from someone who actually agrees with you on some of the points you make. But, you just showed that you really don't care about people; you only care about people when it fits your agenda. You don't care that person X has to get to work to feed their kids. You're a vile piece of garbage.

[timfogarty]

Oh brother. You're REALLY comparing the BLM retards to the civil rights movement? Brother, you need to take a deep blunt and sit down.

this says it all

[timfogarty]

So, youre okay with people blocking highways that preclude people from getting to their job? What if person X needs to get to their job to feed their family? And lets say this person doesn't make much, and missing one day of pay will determine if they put food on the table for their kids? You're okay with this. If you are, then you are a bigger idiot than the rest of the forum actually thinks, and this is coming from someone who agrees with you, probably more than most here.

I have sat in the middle of major intersections with a few thousand other protestors on more than one occasion.  we blocked traffic for a while, got on the evening news, and moved on.  tell me a more effective way to peaceably get your point across

[_aj_]

I have sat in the middle of major intersections with a few thousand other protestors on more than one occasion.  we blocked traffic for a while, got on the evening news, and moved on.  tell me a more effective way to peaceably get your point across

Mass suicide?

[SF1900]

I have sat in the middle of major intersections with a few thousand other protestors on more than one occasion.  we blocked traffic for a while, got on the evening news, and moved on.  tell me a more effective way to peaceably get your point across

Then you're a vile piece of shit. You literally could have cost a child a meal for a night, since many people need to get to work to feed their family. But who cares about that child, right? Because you have YOUR agenda. What if person X was fired because he didn't make it to work that day? You're disgusting trash.

[timfogarty]

Then you're a vile piece of shit. You literally could have cost a child a meal for a night, since many people need to get to work to feed their family. But who cares about that child, right? Because you have YOUR agenda. You're disgusting trash.

was it also wrong to do in the 1950s for civil rights, 60s and 70s against the war in Vietnam, 80s and 90s for gay rights? what progress would we have had if not for such marches and sit ins?

[SF1900]

was it also wrong to do in the 1950s for civil rights, 60s and 70s against the war in Vietnam, 80s and 90s for gay rights? what progress would we have had if not for such marches and sit ins?

Is it wrong to limit someone's ability to get to work to feed their kids and pay their bills because of your protest?

Are you against limiting someone's livelihood, in order to protest your rights?

I am all for peaceful protest, EXCEPT when it limits the livelihood of someone. This includes being able to get to work to earn a living. Once your protests impede someone elses ability to function in society, then you need to shut up and move on.

[timfogarty]

Is it wrong to limit someone's ability to get to work to feed their kids and pay their bills because of your protest?

Are you against limiting someone's livelihood, in order to protest your rights?

Rosa Parks et al shut down the Montgomery Bus System for 381 days.  that affected a lot of bus drivers and a lot of businesses that depended on customers using the bus system.  was that protest wrong because it limited lots of people's livelihood?

[SF1900]

Rosa Parks et al shut down the Montgomery Bus System for 381 days.  that affected a lot of bus drivers and a lot of businesses that depended on customers using the bus system.  was that protest wrong because it limited lots of people's livelihood?

Absolutely.

And although I am not registered as a democrat, this is coming from someone who probably has more liberal leanings (pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro LGBT rights, etc.) than most here.

But even I could recognize hypocrisy and stupidity. And you, sir, fit both criteria.

[timfogarty]

Absolutely.

And although I am not registered as a democrat, this is coming from someone who probably has more liberal leanings (pro gay marriage, pro abortion, etc.) than most here.

But even I could recognize hypocrisy and stupidity. And you, sir, fit both criteria.

you think any civil right gains would have happen without demonstrations, protests and sit-ins?  what alternative is there? other than violent revolution.

[Skylge]

Good for them. Many non-Americans and even some Americans have no idea how offend our government and law enforcement shits all over the constitution.

Moaning cry baby. Try living in say russia or the middle east for one year. You don't realize how well off and lucky you americans are

[SF1900]

you think any civil rights would have happen without demonstrations, protests and sit-ins?  what alternative is there? other than violent revolution.

I am fine with demonsrtrations, protests and sit-ins, as long as it doesn't affect other peoples livelihood.

For example, I went to an undergrad, liberal oriented school in NYC. I didnt attend the school because it was liberally oriented. I went because it had a good psychology program. Anyway, they were protesting the war. So, a bunch of kids were protesting by painting their bodies with red (to signify the death of innocent civilians). They were laying outside on the ground, right near the front entrance to the main building. I was fine with that, because I just walked around them, and entered the building to get to class. However, if they were blocking my ability to enter the building, which made me miss class, that is when they need to have their asses forceably removed. And I'd be happy to do it myself.  

[The Scott]

you think any civil rights would have happen without demonstrations, protests and sit-ins?  what alternative is there? other than violent revolution.

Silly man.  You know the answer but  instead will listen only to the voices in your otherwise empty head.

[Coach is Back!]

Oh, wait, no.  It's white militia, offshoot of Cliven Bundy

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/02/3735576/150-armed-militia-members-take-over-federal-building/

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

[_aj_]

By SF's standards, the "militia" occupying an otherwise empty and unused building are impeding exactly zero people. Ergo, the real terrorists are the BLM in this story. I endorse this narrative.