In this case, over a new city ordinance to confine "peaceful" protests to sidewalks and parks and otherwise out of city streets where traffic can be impeded and violence incited.
Or, in other words, another excuse for Oakland rioters to exercise their "constitutional right" to riot:
Police made arrests as demonstrators marched in downtown Oakland to against the city’s new get-tough policy for monitoring street protests — the second such gathering in as many days.
Officers watched closely Sunday night as the protesters marched several blocks starting at Frank Ogawa Plaza.
Spokeswoman Johnna A. Watson said about 100-150 marched before organizers ended the event, and then a group of 15-20 started another protest…
The Oakland Tribune reported Sunday that police cited a new policy by the city’s mayor to force protesters from the street to the sidewalk after Oakland experienced several violent demonstrations in the past year. Oakland has hosted rallies in the streets for years, but the mayor said the new policy is needed to combat damage to property and violence.
Wow, since when did the rioters elect a "fascist" mayor? Guess they didn't do their due diligence as voters, did they?
The First Amendment guarantees, among others, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". It is silent on where "the people" may do this, and therefore does not prohibit "the Government" at any level from specifying where "peaceable assembly" may legally take place and where it may not in the interests of "domestic Tranquility".
But under such constraints, it'd be much more difficult to spark fresh riots, wouldn't it? And nowhere in the First Amendment or anyplace else in the Constitution will you find enumerated a "right of the people violently to assemble, and to burn down the Government for a revenge on grievances".
I guess the Oakland rioters - oh, my apologies, "protesters" - didn't do their due diligence in civics class, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment