Court finds S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley violated civil rights arresting Occupy protesters

[Thebobo]

Meh. Hot governor versus smelly hippies shitting on police cars and demanding that someone else pay off their student loans, give them free stuff, and find their stolen MacBook Airs? I'll go with hot governor every time.

yep hippies

.

 

[bshole]

Meh. Hot governor versus smelly hippies shitting on police cars and demanding that someone else pay off their student loans, give them free stuff, and find their stolen MacBook Airs? I'll go with hot governor every time.

Drop the charges and re-charge for vagrancy and public nuisance.

Also, Haley is Indian, so

YOU RACIST BASTARDS! HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH HER!

I would tap that in a heartbeat.

 

[werepossum]

yep hippies

.

You got me there. Allow me to revise and extend my remarks to also include those for whom age has clouded their minds.

I would tap that in a heartbeat.

Yep, if we were both single.

 

[Genx87]

I don't get where you'd get the idea that any rights would be violated if they have restrictions in place on when certain spaces can be used. Doesn't just about every metro park have a closing time?

That's basically what was going on here. They were camping out in a space, and there was no specific regulation saying "you have to leave this space by 6PM" or something to that effect. Thus, when the idiots were removed from that space, the judge says, it wasn't proper because there was no stipulation that they would have to leave by a certain time. So now, there are specific times when you can be there and when you can't. Nobody's rights are violated, nobody has a right to be in whatever place they want whenever they want without restriction.

I look at rights as either they are rights or they aren't. Either I can voice an opinion or I cant. Because if I can voice an opinion only when the state tells me I can. Those aren't rights, those are privileges extended by the state.

 

[PokerGuy]

I look at rights as either they are rights or they aren't. Either I can voice an opinion or I cant. Because if I can voice an opinion only when the state tells me I can. Those aren't rights, those are privileges extended by the state.

No, you can voice your opinion whenever you want. The state isn't telling you when you can voice your opinion. However, you don't have the right to voice that opinion in a particular place of your choosing whever you want without restrictions. Surely that makes logical sense.

 

[Genx87]

No, you can voice your opinion whenever you want. The state isn't telling you when you can voice your opinion. However, you don't have the right to voice that opinion in a particular place of your choosing whever you want without restrictions. Surely that makes logical sense.

All they said was the state can say the statehouse is always closed and the state can bar anybody from voicing their opinion there. Like I said either we have civil rights or we don't. Having the state tell us when we can voice an opinion isn't a civil right, that is a privilege.

 

[dphantom]

Don't worry, the Republicans will appeal to the statist Roberts court and their suppression of First Amendment rights will be upheld 5-4.

The Supreme Court is not statist though some of its liberal members are.

 

[fleshconsumed]

All they said was the state can say the statehouse is always closed and the state can bar anybody from voicing their opinion there. Like I said either we have civil rights or we don't. Having the state tell us when we can voice an opinion isn't a civil right, that is a privilege.

Surprisingly I agree with you here. "Free speech zones" are one of the biggest slaps in the face of the 1st amendment. IMO you should not be able to protest on the private property, as private property rights should be protected. However, any public property should be fair game at any time without any restrictions as long as the protesters do not damage any surrounding property. That is what public property is for - it is owned by the public and you should have the damn right to voice your opinion there.

 

[brandonb]

As a conservative. I'd say that our rights aren't only given to us when its convenient for the government and only on their terms. They are there for the people, to be used as they see fit.

That said, the rights were violated.

I have a friend who had their 1st amendment rights violated by having government employees call the cops on him when he went to file a grievance against a government employee. Lower court dismissed the case. The appeals court dismissed the case on the grounds that my friend could have just came back at another time to file the grievance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition

Which is silly since the entire point is:

without fear of punishment or reprisals

But its the courts, they don't make sense and serve the government. But I'm happy to see this happened in SC.

 

[PokerGuy]

All they said was the state can say the statehouse is always closed and the state can bar anybody from voicing their opinion there. Like I said either we have civil rights or we don't. Having the state tell us when we can voice an opinion isn't a civil right, that is a privilege.

By that logic, I should have the right to march right into the white house and start shouting and protest, otherwise, the state is denying me the right to voice my grievances. That just doesn't make sense. You do not have the right to voice your opinion wherever you want, and the judge simply said the state is well within their rights to set normal hours of operation/availability for the grounds or the buildings within their care.

The problem is that the state didn't have those things in place when it chose to enforce some arbitrary restriction. Once the restriction was in place, the state is within it's rights to enforce them, just like it would be for *any* public property.

There is nothing strange or precedent setting about this case, the state simply acted incorrectly because they didn't have the restrictions in place at the time they acted.

 

[PokerGuy]

That is what public property is for - it is owned by the public and you should have the damn right to voice your opinion there.

Are you the only one who has that right? What about others who want to do things there? What about those who want to conduct normal daily activities at the state house? Do your rights trump theirs?