« The Decade That Wouldn't Die (Part I) | Main | The Decade That Wouldn't Die (Part II) »

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Mayor Bloomberg to potential RNC protesters: "Now play nice and mommy will give a big lollipop!" They must be rolling on the floor in laughter over at protester central. Can't say I blame them. Update: this idea is just ripe for Photoshopping. citybutton.jpg

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Worst. Idea. Ever.:

» Buttons from This Blog Is Full Of Crap
(Via Binky the Squirrel) NY TIMES: Just Keep It Peaceful, Protesters; New York Is Offering Discounts Button, button... who's got the button? I've got the button! Wear it proudly, you suckpots!... [Read More]

» Buttons from This Blog Is Full Of Crap
(Via Binky the Squirrel) NY TIMES: Just Keep It Peaceful, Protesters; New York Is Offering Discounts Button, button... who's got the button? I've got the button! Here's another: Wear them proudly, you suckpots!... [Read More]

Comments

The main problem being the fucknuts he's trying to speak to have no sense of humor.

I think the problem is he's taking a hard line stance with regular city residents who are doing nothing more than sitting on milk crates and he's taking this soft, appeaser approach to dealing with people hell bent on disrupting the city for four days.

How about discounts for all the commuters that have to put up with all the crap that week? Say 25% off our next train ticket.

Sorry, I'm not up on the local news...this is just one more straw on this increasingly pissed off camel's back. I'd like to think that not one of these arrested adolescents has a clue how to effectively protest...but then the appeasers get to work and these violent idiots get the blowjob of their choice.

well I'll be, the "peace dividend" is back!

Nah. The worst idea ever had to be that musical cop show a few years back.

NYC should rent a few mothballed cruise ships and use them to transport rowdy protestors to Greenland. Let them protest their way home.

If they act up while the boat's at sea, scuttle it.

Laurence we can add this to you hoping the protestors were blown up.

If you go to nycvisit.com -- you'll notice they have a "peaceful protester" discount card you can print out for yourself... =anybody= can get these discounts. wheee!

As my (former NYPD) dad would put it, "OK, we'll put you in the not guilty cell."

"It's no fun to protest on an empty stomach." WTF, stupid fuckwit mayor. It's no fun to hang in a bar without smoking either. Do something about that, eh? Michele, your comment hit it on the head.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Just a reminder....

Joseph,

As long as your rancor for the stifling of protest in New York City is equal to your rancor for the stifling of protest in Boston, I won't call you a hypocrite.

I don't rancor easy. But I do note that even people with "off message" t-shirts are being barred from Bush rallies and Bush events, even when they've paid for the priviledge of attending.

Mr. Bush spends his entire Presidential life surrounded only by "cheerleaders" while the others are safely herded into "free speech zones" (yes they do have the brazen gall to call them that) far out of his earshot.

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards recently put themselves on a train where there were opportunities for partisan heckling at every whistle stop across the "heartland".

The contrast is heartening, if you love this country.

The cages of Boston were appalling. But a cage is just a cage, even if it is called a "free speech zone" and my fine friends here would do well to remember that depending upon circumstances ANY of us here might end up in a "free speech zone" sometime ourselves. And that such things are a bad precedent.

I, for one, can think of several "women's clinics" in my town where harrassed employees might need as much reminding of the primacy of "freedom of speech" as anyone in America. Whose to say that "free speech zones" for their clinics, set up somewhere in the next township, is something they shouldn't lobby the local authorities for?

I just have to smirk.

Hey, anybody in this city has to get a permit if they want to have a huge crowd event. The Puerto Rican Day Parade (and you should've seen the barricades this year), the St. Pat's Parade, the Macy's Parade, the Gay Pride Parade, the Village Halloween Parade -- they aren't allowed to go whereever they wish and =all= include those metal barricades for crowd control. That big group that wanted to mess up the Great Lawn for a giant photo-op got a permit to march =right=by= Madison Square Garden, as in, the avenue that goes right by the building... and down West Side Highway which would actually make an excellent photo-op if they get a big turnout. And they're =still= bitching? WTF? Screw them, I say.

The city has no responsibility to clean up after these people's messes. This is public space that needs to be used for all, which is why one isn't allowed to block traffic just because you feel like operating your right to free speech. The Republican Convention is a private party, basically, and nobody gets to crash just because they feel like operating their right to free speech. Any individual is allowed to stand on any street corner here and shout out their opinions (during reasonable hours of the day) - indeed, I've passed some interesting people yelling their opinions almost every day this summer and none have been bothered by the cops. But if you want to gather thousands of people, the city has an interest in making sure you don't mess up everybody else's right to get where they want to go and their right not to be harassed by masses of people.

It's not like the protesters will hurt for camera time. It's just publicity-whoring, all this whining.

Hmm, you know, I hear a lot about the first and tenth ammendment these days. Joseph just reminded me what prickles my ears whenever I hear them used maliciously (as is most often the case) to quell my rights to say that someone is a dumbass. That little prickle starts at the words "Congress Shall Make No LAW..." Also, "No state may enforce any LAW..." Now, when last I checked, and it has ben a while, i may have missed something, there is no law that says you have to gree with the president in public, or that during a moment of silence in school (in days past) you had to pray for the Christian (or any other for that matter) God. So immediately there is NO contradiction there. Now, there are laws that protect the peace, e.g. you cannot play your stereo at 120dB after 2200hrs. There are also laws against, for example, stringing wires or using caltrops against police horses to disrupt service and place people in harm's way. Not to mention that it's just mean. Ok, Yes, these Free Speech Zones are ridiculous, i thought that at the DNC and i think it now. Because it rather makes me wonder, what is on the other side of the boundary? Either without or within the zones, does tht mean free speech does not exist? Interesting point to me, but tangential. These zonea are meant to keep the whackjobs on the Left fom mingling with the Whackjobs on the Right and turning ugly. Ok, so my point here is, Don't use the Constitution to essentially say "Help, Help, I'm being repressed," becasue to me it won't fly until I see the actual law that was passed that stifles your rights to say it. Thanks.

Don't use the Constitution to essentially say "Help, Help, I'm being repressed," becasue to me it won't fly until I see the actual law that was passed that stifles your rights to say it.

Thank you, Tommy. This is my primary gripe with those who yipe "first amendment, helphelp!!" whenever something like this comes up. Reading comprehension, people...look into it.

Michele -- this may be the first report about "protester central" you've run that is correct.

We are indeed rolling on the floor in laughter. Almost as funny as the Daily News' coverage about "anarchists."

Hey, Joseph, what do you think about this one?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Just a reminder...

Jed's input just makes everything so much more...meaningful.

gak

Wait, is this is the same Joseph who yesterday advocated closing lower Manhattan to vehicular traffic now avdocating allowing mobs of potentially violent individuals (Seattle anyone?) roam around a heavily populated city already under the threat of continued attacks?

I love how the left is never bothered by small matters like internal consistenancy.

I might also add that the First Amendment does not guarantee your right to speak at any place and at any time you want to. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of consitutional law understands that all rights are subject to reasonable regulations, including time, place, and manner restrictions.

Get the law straight before you quote things.

Marshall

I guess this portion of the clause went right over your head
without due process of law

Well, now, I'm back at my borrowed computer after a big plate of homemade nachos, so I'll arise like a giant refreshed and get to work!

Let's try to take it an issue at at time. So, to "law". EVERY act by an agent of federal, state, or local government has to meet the standards of "due process" and "equal protection" insofar as they impinge in a citizen's rights--not just the actual statutes passed by Congress. The courts have been quite clear about this for some little time now.

I comprehend what I read quite well, thank you--and I was also awake in Civics Class when the crucial Amendments were discussed in detail.

As to the Second Amendment, I'm personally inclined to agree with the basic NRA position that the framers intended to explicitly protect private firearm ownership.

The claim that the amendment is about "militias" seems to me a piece of legal causuity. But that right, in my view at least, extends to possession and ownership only.

So I do think that private possession is a "right" with the same force as voting, free speech, and so on. But I think the interstate commerce clause clearly allows regulation of the firearms industry--manufacture, sale, transportation, and so on--like any other industry.

And limitations on public carrying, whether open or concealed, are perfectly within the perview of law in the interest of public order. Just like the regulation of the times and places of free speech and registered voting.

Now as to mobs of potentially violent individuals: From English common law forward, the presumption has been that any assembly is peaceful unless it disobeys a direct order to disperse, or otherwise engages in criminal conduct.

This is the exact legal meaning of "reading the riot act"--an explicit order to disperse. That presumption is part of "the equal protection of the law".

A crowd is merely a crowd until it ACTS like a mob. Since there isn't even a crowd there yet, there are no "mobs of potentially violent individuals" roaming anywhere (except for the normal population).

As to pedestrian malls, the issue of preventing an Oklahoma City style bombing here, there, or anywhere, with or without radioactive waste, is clearly a separate issue from ordinary crowd control, as a little lucid reflection on the actual problems should show you.

Now as to the legal limits of "free speech", I do realize them and do not deny them. And I personally have no quarrel with NYC in this particular instance, as most people here seem to, for one reason or the other.

But when an Administration consistently refuses to allow citizens to express dissent ANYWHERE that its President might see them or hear them (unless he accidentally happens to turn on the television) it has stepped beyond what the Constitution demands in allowing "petition for redress of grievances".

And it still did my heart good that my candidates of choice, at least, have enough inner integrity to actually face some hostile heckling in the spirit that this country belongs to ALL of its citizens and not just the ones who agree with you.

OK Joey, and your plate of nachos, let's take this one point at a time, shall we?

Let's try to take it an issue at at time. So, to "law". EVERY act by an agent of federal, state, or local government has to meet the standards of "due process" and "equal protection" insofar as they impinge in a citizen's rights--not just the actual statutes passed by Congress. The courts have been quite clear about this for some little time now.

Yeah so? No one's debating this point.

I comprehend what I read quite well, thank you--and I was also awake in Civics Class when the crucial Amendments were discussed in detail.

Oooooo, Civics Class, you're a legal expert now!

Second Amendment stuff skipped over because I have no interest in Second Amendment debate.

Now as to mobs of potentially violent individuals: From English common law forward, the presumption has been that any assembly is peaceful unless it disobeys a direct order to disperse, or otherwise engages in criminal conduct.

What amazing piece of nonsense this is. We should wait for people to become violent before we do anything about them? Not too brainwashed by Kerry's we won't act unless we are absolutely postivitely double dog dared to, are you? In case you haven't been paying attention, this isn't 1400's England, and the law has evolved quite a bit in the last 600 some years.

New York City VALIDLY AND CONSITUTIONALLY requires a permit for large public assemblies, and the granting or denying of such permits is, again, CONSTITUTIONALLY left to the discretion of the City (I know this because I litigated it for a client, not from Civics Class).

The only way equal protection is violated, in this case, is if the City's actions don't have a rational basis (strict scrutiny only applies to "protected classifications" like race, gender, religions). This is the lowest level of Consitutional scrutiny, and the City's actions clearly pass muster here. They have a group at least in part made up of individuals who have demonstrated their propensity for violence (as I mentioned before, Seattle, as well as other WTO protests). They also have to deal with real credible threats of terrorist activity including possible assassination attempts. More than passes rational basis, if not strict scrutiny.

As for due process, that requires only that the City fairly consider the application, that the applicant have an opportunity to be heard. I don't think anyone can seriusly dispute this has been fulfilled.

This is the exact legal meaning of "reading the riot act"--an explicit order to disperse. That presumption is part of "the equal protection of the law".

Um no, it's not.

A crowd is merely a crowd until it ACTS like a mob. Since there isn't even a crowd there yet, there are no "mobs of potentially violent individuals" roaming anywhere (except for the normal population).

See above. Again, no.

As to pedestrian malls, the issue of preventing an Oklahoma City style bombing here, there, or anywhere, with or without radioactive waste, is clearly a separate issue from ordinary crowd control, as a little lucid reflection on the actual problems should show you.

Oh, and the terrorists won't take advantage of unruly, ungoverned mobs milling about within biological striking distance of the President. Right.

Now as to the legal limits of "free speech", I do realize them and do not deny them. And I personally have no quarrel with NYC in this particular instance, as most people here seem to, for one reason or the other.

Oh well, thank goodness. We can all breathe a sigh of relief.

But when an Administration consistently refuses to allow citizens to express dissent ANYWHERE that its President might see them or hear them (unless he accidentally happens to turn on the television) it has stepped beyond what the Constitution demands in allowing "petition for redress of grievances".

Do you seriously believe that the right to "petition for the redress of grievances" include heckling the President on the campaign trail? You're actually much stupider than I initially thought. The right to petition for redress of grievances is generally thought to exist through the judicial branch (in case you don't understand big words, that means the courts). That's in no way abridged here. At all.

If you're objecting to keeping protesters away from striking distance of the President, I think we've sufficiently covered why that's justified in today's world.

And it still did my heart good that my candidates of choice, at least, have enough inner integrity to actually face some hostile heckling in the spirit that this country belongs to ALL of its citizens and not just the ones who agree with you.

The terrorists love Kerry because he's going to appease them, and thus have no interest in his assassination, thus fewer security concerns arise. In addition, the concept of rowdy mobs of Repubicans bent on smashing windows and overturning cars simply does not exist.

Now go eat some more nachos in mom's basement and make sure your tin foil hat is on straight.

P.S. I'm sorry Michele, you know I hate to leave book like comments, but this would have made no sense on my own blog. ;)

I'll also apologise and close--I've been a bandwidth bad boy too.

Hey, Marshall, I hate to rain on your parade, but you mentioned Kerry/Edwards were going across county and listening to partisan heckling?

Sorry, but here in Raleigh, NC there was a Kerry/Edwards rally that was held, and anyone (ANYONE) who wore anything (button/shirt) etc, that supported Bush in any way was removed from the scene. There were several people forcefully removed from ticket lines for wearing Bush pins. Made the news for about 2 or 3 days.

As to the Second Amendment, I'm personally inclined to agree with the basic NRA position that the framers intended to explicitly protect private firearm ownership. The claim that the amendment is about "militias" seems to me a piece of legal causuity. But that right, in my view at least, extends to possession and ownership only.

Must have been some bad nachos, Joseph. What part of "...keep and bear arms..." did you have trouble with?

"Laurence we can add this to you hoping the protestors were blown up." - Drew

I'm not seeing a downside to Lair's hopes there.

Comment #1 pretty much summed it up for me. This whole thing is just a big middle finger of irony (is that a valid metaphor) to all the teenybopper anarchists.
'Come on by! Wreck the place up, we've got plenty of cops! We'll still be the capitalist center of the world long after you're dead of a drug overdose! And should you come into money, we welcome your patronage.'

One thing's for sure, it'll be great entertainment.

A bunch of angst-ridden teenaged anarchist wannabes

(the same people who protest the WTO all the time and get their heads thumped by the cops when they try to create "disorder")

and a bunch of aging hippies trying to relive their youth.

I'm sure that circus will convince "Middle America" to vote for Kerry.

After all, "protesting" sure helped Humphrey in 68 and McGovern in 72.