These are not subjective matters. These types of situations have already happened. To the first point, it would be in the same regards as loud music which can be considered a criminal offense. And I have never heard the latter. As long as you do not riot? You are not aloud to do anything illegal and you are not aloud to incite violence.

 

No. Did you not read the letter I posted from the Chancellor of UC: Davis?

 

When you say that the First Amendment isn't subjective, you are saying that there is no room for debate about its meaning or intention. I'm not sure I follow how what you've posted here shows that. In this situation in particular, many people have felt that the rights of the students were violated by the Chancellor and the police. From what I gather, you believe that they were not because the Chancellor decreed they leave. That is fine. But, it isn't a black and white, clear cut case and one that people are obviously very opinionated about. At the heart of it is everyone's interpretation of the First Amendment's meaning and intention. That it can be interpreted so widely shows that it is subjective. Now, I hope to hear others' opinions on the First Amendment, particularly regarding assembly.

Habib, what is your interpretation of peaceable assembly?

 

^This should be fun ...

 

I'm all for it.

When you say that the First Amendment isn't subjective, you are saying that there is no room for debate about its meaning or intention. I'm not sure I follow how what you've posted here shows that. In this situation in particular, many people have felt that the rights of the students were violated by the Chancellor and the police. From what I gather, you believe that they were not because the Chancellor decreed they leave. That is fine. But, it isn't a black and white, clear cut case and one that people are obviously very opinionated about. At the heart of it is everyone's interpretation of the First Amendment's meaning and intention. That it can be interpreted so widely shows that it is subjective. Now, I hope to hear others' opinions on the First Amendment, particularly regarding assembly.

 

No I'm not saying there is no room for debate. I am saying there is guidelines that we as citizens of the US have to live by when it comes to our amendments. Take Freedom of Speech for example. We can say the most hateful things and it is okay and its protected. We cannot say slanderous statements or incite danger. We can peacefully assemble and petition but we still have guidelines. Students at UC schools have guidelines to live by. The chancellor has to keep order and make sure the students can learn in an environment. UC schools are expensive. If I sent my kid there and paid 30,000+ dollars, I would want the administration to have control so my child is getting the education they are paying for. How were the students rights violated by the chancellor? What would you have done?

I have to say that, had they started acting up (spitting on officers, resisting, becoming combative etc...) they would have deserved to be sprayed. What I saw in the video made the police look like the bad guys. Bad decision by the police IMO.

Putting a lid on corporate greed isn't enough of a reason?

 

The term "corporate greed" is interesting. Corporations aren't greedy, people are. However, if you are putting any money in a 401K or other equity investment, how do you want the company's your money is invested in to behave?

I have to say that, had they started acting up (spitting on officers, resisting, becoming combative etc...) they would have deserved to be sprayed. What I saw in the video made the police look like the bad guys. Bad decision by the police IMO.

 

I'm with you. Even though the beginning of the video doesn't show what led up to the beginning of the incident, the people are at that point sitting, unagressively. The cop saunters along randomly spraying, seemingly aiming for their faces. He doesn't exude an air of fear. In fact, he seems quite dispassionate. From the video, I can't see the justification for pepper spraying the individuals.

 

As a tangent, I know someone who had a pepper spray key chain. She accidentally grabbed it the wrong way and sprayed her dog, resulting in blindness in one eye. I'm not thinking I believe pepper spray is any more harmless than tazing.

Pepper spray, tazers, ect... are used for two reasons, so the officer isn't injured trying to subdue a person and the person isn't injured being subdued. I have a cousin who is a police officer in Owensboro. Several years ago he and another officer where attempting to arrest a man who was resisting. They had him on the ground on his stomach trying to get his arms behind his back to get him cuffed. While pulling his arm behind his back he was trying to pull away and his arm broke. Needless to say he sued. This is just one of a dozen stories I have heard of injuries that have occured while an officer is trying to put someone in cuffs and not just to the person being arrested.

 

So for those that are saying just cuff them and pull them apart, what if the officers tried that and the protestors did what they normally do and just lay their limp. The officers being dragging them and someone gets hurt? Then what? What if the officer gets hurt? Again, before anyone jumps to conclusion I think we need to see/know what happened leading up to this video.

Putting a lid on corporate greed isn't enough of a reason?

 

Greed is not prohibited by the constitution. The government does not have role in stopping it. Especially private, non-government corporations.

 

If people want to petition about greed - lets start with two things are very disturbing - a) Outrageous bonuses to the 'executives' of the quasi-government functions that participate in the marketplace - i.e. the multi-million bonuses to those in charge of Freddie, Fanny, etc. and b) the insider trading done by members of congress.

 

What the government does have responsibility to do - and has not done it well for a long time - well before this administration - is to control manipulation of stock prices of publicly traded companies that generated undeserved and illegal wealth creation for the insiders and hedge funds and publicly traded mega-banks. The SEC has been asleep at the wheel for a long time. The SEC and regulators have not addressed stock manipulation and manipulation of financial derivative entities by insiders and hedge funds adequately at all.

Greed is not prohibited by the constitution. The government does not have role in stopping it. Especially private, non-government corporations.

 

If people want to petition about greed - lets start with two things are very disturbing - a) Outrageous bonuses to the 'executives' of the quasi-government functions that participate in the marketplace - i.e. the multi-million bonuses to those in charge of Freddie, Fanny, etc. and b) the insider trading done by members of congress.

 

What the government does have responsibility to do - and has not done it well for a long time - well before this administration - is to control manipulation of stock prices of publicly traded companies that generated undeserved and illegal wealth creation for the insiders and hedge funds and publicly traded mega-banks. The SEC has been asleep at the wheel for a long time. The SEC and regulators have not addressed stock manipulation and manipulation of financial derivative entities by insiders and hedge funds adequately at all.

 

Exactly.

I'm all for it.

 

All for what? What is YOUR interpretation? You question everyone else, which is perfectly fine. Now I am questioning you.

When you say that the First Amendment isn't subjective, you are saying that there is no room for debate about its meaning or intention. I'm not sure I follow how what you've posted here shows that. In this situation in particular, many people have felt that the rights of the students were violated by the Chancellor and the police. From what I gather, you believe that they were not because the Chancellor decreed they leave. That is fine. But, it isn't a black and white, clear cut case and one that people are obviously very opinionated about. At the heart of it is everyone's interpretation of the First Amendment's meaning and intention. That it can be interpreted so widely shows that it is subjective. Now, I hope to hear others' opinions on the First Amendment, particularly regarding assembly.

 

How were they violated? They were asked to leave by 3 p.m. and chose not to. The way the police handled the matter is in question. If students begin to destroy campus grounds the Chancellor is responsible, especially if a student is injured. (I.e. Rape, death, vandalism in OWS) When you begin to disrupt public areas it is expected that law enforcement will intervene. Like I've said, sometimes this is necessary, but it should be expected if you truely believe in your cause.

All for what? What is YOUR interpretation? You question everyone else, which is perfectly fine. Now I am questioning you.

 

I was being facetious. At any rate, I'll post my thoughts later, but was hoping to get drawn into a discussion in the meantime.

I was being facetious. At any rate, I'll post my thoughts later, but was hoping to get drawn into a discussion in the meantime.

 

Predictable.

What I saw in the video made the police look like the bad guys. Bad decision by the police IMO.

You bleeding heart liberals are all alike.

The term "corporate greed" is interesting. Corporations aren't greedy, people are. However, if you are putting any money in a 401K or other equity investment, how do you want the company's your money is invested in to behave?

 

Ethically would be nice.

 

Greed is not prohibited by the constitution. The government does not have role in stopping it. Especially private, non-government corporations.

 

If people want to petition about greed - lets start with two things are very disturbing - a) Outrageous bonuses to the 'executives' of the quasi-government functions that participate in the marketplace - i.e. the multi-million bonuses to those in charge of Freddie, Fanny, etc. and b) the insider trading done by members of congress.

 

What the government does have responsibility to do - and has not done it well for a long time - well before this administration - is to control manipulation of stock prices of publicly traded companies that generated undeserved and illegal wealth creation for the insiders and hedge funds and publicly traded mega-banks. The SEC has been asleep at the wheel for a long time. The SEC and regulators have not addressed stock manipulation and manipulation of financial derivative entities by insiders and hedge funds adequately at all.

 

Your diatribe is heart-warming and all, really, but where did I say that government should do something about it? How about big business do the right thing, for a change?