don't protestors have to stick to certain areas of the city or they have to get a permit? That way they don't block traffic and legal protests can go on without interrupting the regular business.
some of these people have deviated from the purpose of the rallies, and many of them seem to be doing it for the attention or the thrill of breaking the law. but the alternative - preventing the rallies - would be far worse than any damage they could possibly cause.
How exactly does blocking a bridge advance the discussion? How does paralyzing a city's streets get your point across? Does the First Amendment give youa right to block the gates of an Army base? These so-called demonstrations are more about a bunch of angry America-haters having an excuse to go out and stage one of their tantrums. Last year it was globalization. Now the same crowd is mad that we don't turn our foreign policy over to France and Russia. Next year I suppose it will be global warming. The issue doesn't matter, all that matters is having an excuse to say how much they hate everything connected to our country.
not sure the question makes sense - are you arguing that abrogating the First Amendment would dishearten the enemy, or at least not embolden it, and therefore save American lives? or were you extending to some extreme hypothetical, where one had to choose between a right to free speech and the lives of American servicemen?
Thank you...... Allied forces carried out a massive bombing campaign on Baghdad early Friday, smashing telecommunications structures in the Iraqi capital in an attempt to cut off Saddam Hussein from his military and civilians. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82382,00.html
It's hardly an "extreme hypothetical." Saddam is emboldened by the protests. How could he not be? As I've stated earlier, protesting is a right, but in a situation like this all it does (beyond giving the protesters a warm and fuzzy feeling by yelling their dissent and feeling very "American") at the end of the day is embolden the enemy, demoralize our troops, and thus endanger them. I know, I know. American troops are all volunteers, they know the dangers of their chosen profession, blah, blah, blah. Exercising the First Amendment is way more important than they are. Also, as I've stated earlier, I am NOT saying dissent should be silenced and carte blanche be accorded to our elected officials! But I do feel that wartime, with the lives of our troops at stake, is a unique situation, one in which restraint may be the wiser and more noble course of action rather than exercising the right to do otherwise. The most effective form of protest is done at the voting booth.
I agree - restraint would be wiser, and protesting with the sole goal of harming American servicemen is deplorable. but that's up to the individual - there's little the state could do in this regard aside from prohibiting speech, which is a greater danger in the long term. as to the hypothetical choice of speech vs. servicemen - the administration is not only willing, but is actually sacrificing the lives of servicemen in an attempt to grant freedoms to the Iraqis. it would seem more than a bit contradictory to limit the freedoms of Americans in the effort.
You are making some good points but I would disagree a bit. If you review the supreme Court cases interpreting the First Amendment, you will see there is no absolute right to demonstrate, particularly in wartime. Some of the cases in WW I and WWII would shock you as sidewalk protestors were sent to jail for long terms with the Court's approval. The distinction between those cases and Viet Nam dissent is a matter of both the existence of a formal declaration of war and a greatly expanded view of the First Amendment. I think a very strong constitutional case could be made that local governments do not have to turn their streets over to these protestors. Alternate venues are available, the protestors are endangering public safety and we are at war.
Of course, cities are free to decide to turn over their streets to mobs of anti-American protestors. But I think those cities should have to bear the cost themselves. It is very unfair to expect the federal government to underwrite anti-amercian demonstrations when we have troops getting killed.