Wisconsin to charge citizens fee to protest

[spidey07]

Why should the citizens need to pay for what was determined to be normal wear and tear? Why should groups pay for what the state decides to do in reaction to exercising their constitutional rights?

Imagine spidey's reaction if Obama did this. He would be in full on meltdown mode right now, and we'd be up to our asses in Hitler references.

Nope. I don't have a right to disrupt official congressional business via protest or damage property. I do have a right to protest and make my grievances be heard, but I do not have a right to interfere with congressional business. I also do not have a right to infringe on the rights of others.

Just like I don't have the right to carry my weapon into the capital.

 

[Dulanic]

But you cannot infringe on the rights of others by doing so by destroying property. It's real easy to understand once you realize your rights stop where mine begin. And as a tax payer, you DO NOT have the right to destroy property I paid for or consume resources I paid for.

Go occupy the US house or senate, see what happens. Go ahead, do it. Pitch you up a tent right in the middle of the house, go ahead. The WI state house is no different and if capital police have to beat down your stinky ass, I'm not going to pay for them to do so, YOU WILL.

Hell, because of this thread I'll be giving a few hundred bucks to Patriot Walker and his campaign to squash the liberal horde.

So where in the US constitution does it say free speech if you can afford the fee? Why does a peaceful protestor have to pay the fee? If someone damages something arrest them. Just because a rare few can be violent, the peaceful have to pay?

This applies wether this is a tea party or owa protest. Every person who is a us citizen has the right to protest no matter what their belief is.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope. I don't have a right to disrupt official congressional business via protest or damage property. I do have a right to protest and make my grievances be heard, but I do not have a right to interfere with congressional business. I also do not have a right to infringe on the rights of others.

Just like I don't have the right to carry my weapon into the capital.

You damage government property every time you walk on the sidewalk. The 'damage' to the capitol building was determined to be normal wear and tear, the Walker administrations initial hysterics aside. (it was funny to watch them backpedal on that one)

Whether or not people were interfering with congressional business has no relation to the charges listed in this bill.

 

[spidey07]

So where in the US constitution does it say free speech if you can afford the fee? Why does a peaceful protestor have to pay the fee? If someone damages something arrest them. Just because a rare few can be violent, the peaceful have to pay?

This applies wether this is a tea party or owa protest. Every person who is a us citizen has the right to protest no matter what their belief is.

But not if your protesting interferes with the rights of others or disrupting government business - which is exactly what this measure is for.

Go protest outside the capital and prevent reps from getting into the house - see how that works out for you. How about you and your group continue to shout down reps on the house as they are conducting government business. Go try it, then come back and try to justify what you were doing did not interfere with my rights to be represented.

 

[Dulanic]

But not if your protesting interferes with the rights of others or disrupting government business - which is exactly what this measure is for.

Go protest outside the capital and prevent reps from getting into the house - see how that works out for you. How about you and your group continue to shout down reps on the house as they are conducting government business. Go try it, then come back and try to justify what you were doing did not interfere with my rights to be represented.

The rule he is trying to fine all future organized protests not just protests that interrupt government business. Your argument fails because this rule does not apply only to some organized protests.

 

[davmat787]

There's never a time that people should be prevented from protesting the government's policies due to an inability to pay regardless of ideology.

Right, and I agree, I was merely projecting as to the .gov's justification in charging the Tea Party 8K for their protests in Richmond. Sounds like you disagree that the Tea Party should have been billed that number.

It is a tough issue, I can see both sides. If a city has to pay overtime for police to direct traffic on a protest route so that normal police business is not interrupted, should the protesters pay or should it come from the tax base, many of whom might not agree with said protest. I think that is crux of the issue.

 

[fskimospy]

Right, and I agree, I was merely projecting as to the .gov's justification in charging the Tea Party 8K for their protests in Richmond. Sounds like you disagree that the Tea Party should have been billed that number.

It is a tough issue, I can see both sides. If a city has to pay overtime for police to direct traffic on a protest route so that normal police business is not interrupted, should the protesters pay or should it come from the tax base, many of whom might not agree with said protest. I think that is crux of the issue.

If you make people pay to protest you open up a huge can of worms. The only solution is to make it part of the normal tax base. Sure segments of the population might not agree with some protests, but they will probably agree with others.

I think that preserving the right to redress of grievances is worth a modest investment by government in the occasional protest. I absolutely agree that the Tea Party should not be charged to protest. I understand the requirements for permits, etc, but charging significant sums of money is a nonstarter for me.

 

[cubby1223]

Walker and his Republican thugs will stop at nothing to keep the power they have right now.

They don't care anything about the country or the state.

It's all about the absolute power.

And what is YOUR logic in all of this?

"Walker and his Republican thugs" will build absolute power through enacting policies and such that will lose him the election?

Does this restrict the ability for people to vote Democrat? No? That's what I thought.

 

[cubby1223]

If you make people pay to protest you open up a huge can of worms. The only solution is to make it part of the normal tax base. Sure segments of the population might not agree with some protests, but they will probably agree with others.

I think that preserving the right to redress of grievances is worth a modest investment by government in the occasional protest. I absolutely agree that the Tea Party should not be charged to protest. I understand the requirements for permits, etc, but charging significant sums of money is a nonstarter for me.

Problem is, along with the right to protest, we do have certain responsibilities we must hold up to. It is not right for protests to rack up huge costs to the tax-payers. And no, you are an idiot, in my opinion, to believe there should be funds built into the tax base to pay for protests. That kind of always has been the way it has worked up 'till now. These new waves of protests are acting irresponsible in their determination.

You protest, I have no problem with you paying the costs of protesting. You don't have the right to "win" an argument based on your dedication to being a jerk. Something tells me the "progressives" will have no trouble getting people to give them money to cover the costs.

 

[fskimospy]

Problem is, along with the right to protest, we do have certain responsibilities we must hold up to. It is not right for protests to rack up huge costs to the tax-payers. And no, you are an idiot, in my opinion, to believe there should be funds built into the tax base to pay for protests. That kind of always has been the way it has worked up 'till now. These new waves of protests are acting irresponsible in their determination.

You protest, I have no problem with you paying the costs of protesting. You don't have the right to "win" an argument based on your dedication to being a jerk. Something tells me the "progressives" will have no trouble getting people to give them money to cover the costs.

So you believe that your right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances can be limited by your ability to pay whatever bill the government assesses for you in relation to that petition.

What other parts of the bill of rights do you believe citizens should be charged for?

 

[spidey07]

The rule he is trying to fine all future organized protests not just protests that interrupt government business. Your argument fails because this rule does not apply only to some organized protests.

It applies to the capital and capital police only.

Did anybody actually read the severely biasedblog?

 

[monovillage]

So you believe that your right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances can be limited by your ability to pay whatever bill the government assesses for you in relation to that petition.

What other parts of the bill of rights do you believe citizens should be charged for?

I wish they'd stop charging me for a background check, permit and other costs when I buy a gun, but I guess it's OK, right Eskimo? Every Right is equal, but some are more equal then others.

 

[fskimospy]

I wish they'd stop charging me for a background check, permit and other costs when I buy a gun, but I guess it's OK, right Eskimo? Every Right is equal, but some are more equal then others.

I already said I was okay with permit processing fees for protests, etc. Those modest fees are quite a bit different than the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars that we're talking about here.

 

[monovillage]

I was kinda hoping for the background check part, we really don't want mobs of criminals or crazy people to be able to have a, or be part of a dangerous assembly. With a background check we could keep dangerous assemblies out of the wrong hands.

 

[dmcowen674]

And what is YOUR logic in all of this?

"Walker and his Republican thugs" will build absolute power through enacting policies and such that will lose him the election?

Does this restrict the ability for people to vote Democrat? No? That's what I thought.

When the people are restricted from protesting the only message to get through is the thug.

I am not surprised you would be for that.

 

[monovillage]

The only reason that protesters should have to get a permit or pay fees for their peaceful assembly is if they plan on blocking roads or do any other normally illegal action that typically requires a permit, such as a parade needs a permit to block roads. I think it's smart for protest organizers to alert the proper authorities that it's going to happen, so support can be in place, but it's not a requirement.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So you require public services to handle your protest.

Pay for the cost to the taxpayer then.

What is the issue?

Or you feel that people should be able to leach from society beyond what was authorized?

 

[EagleKeeper]

When the people are restricted from protesting the only message to get through is the thug.

I am not surprised you would be for that.

How are they restricted from protesting?

 

[Ausm]

We are talking about liberals here which means someone else is supposed to pay for the services they consume, duh.

Yeah your right Republicans consume no services at all....

 

[Ausm]

Walker and his Republican thugs will stop at nothing to keep the power they have right now.

They don't care anything about the country or the state.

It's all about the absolute power.


12-3-2011

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/02/walker-looks-to-charge-citizens-fee-to-protest/

Walker intends to charge citizens fee to protest


Free speech is getting expensive in Wisconsin.

Following demonstrations earlier this year which drew up to 100,000 people to the Wisconsin Capitol, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has proposed new policies that would require future protesters to pay in advance to stage an event, at a cost of $50 per hour, per Capitol Police officer.


Police may also require a liability insurance or a bond, according to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.

For their part, many activists are vowing not to be cowed by the new rules.


“This will only embolden people and get them to protest louder,” Nicole Desautels, who participates in a daily pro-labor, sing-along protest, explained to The Chicago Tribune.

It's bad optics for Walker to have 100K-150K of protesters around and in the Capital silly.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It's bad optics for Walker to have 100K-150K of protesters around and in the Capital silly.

And worse for the taxpayers to have to pick up the costs for the protesters security.

Yet if people got hurt and there was no security; the same people would be complaining that the government was not taking care of the people and the police should have been there to protect them..:whiste:

 

[Exterous]

And worse for the taxpayers to have to pick up the costs for the protesters security.

A small price to pay for the ability to protest and one I am gladly willing to pay. I would much rather have this than any way for the government to slowly tighten the noose about protests.

I am shocked that people here actually might think that our government would be able to fairly and without distortion determine a charge for protesting (Not saying there isn't a way to do it just that our government won't be able to figure it out). There is no way they would miss a chance to quell something that might risk their re-election

 

[Agfadoc]

Considering the damage these people are doing to our state, then yes, they need a permit.

If I need a permit to have a block party, or put up a shed, then they need a permit to waste their time and our money to keep us in a perpetual state of disorder. That is the goal isn't it?

Even if they successfully recall Walker, we will now forever be in a continual state of recall, never getting anything done. The protesting class will forever keep us going backwards.

 

[dmcowen674]

Considering the damage these people are doing to our state, then yes, they need a permit.

If I need a permit to have a block party, or put up a shed, then they need a permit to waste their time and our money to keep us in a perpetual state of disorder. That is the goal isn't it?

Even if they successfully recall Walker, we will now forever be in a continual state of recall, never getting anything done. The protesting class will forever keep us going backwards.

So WWYBYWB (Who were you before you were banned) from Wisconsin?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
When the people are restricted from protesting the only message to get through is the thug.

I am not surprised you would be for that.

How are they restricted from protesting?

Did you RTFA?

Only those with money can protest and have to pay up front.

Clearly excludes those that don't have any money.