Anti anti-Bush protesters beaten. Hilarious!

There's so much shenanigans going on in politics, it's not surprising a lot of people are confused.

 

'cause democrats are stupid assholes

 

So freedom of speech should have no limits. Feel free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, yell "******!" in Harlem, yell "Bikers suck!" at the Sturgis ralley and yell "Peace is for pussies!" at an anti-war ralley. It's all covered in the constitution.

 

If you think that pushing a pro-war message at an anti-war rally (or even saying "peace is for pussies") is in any way comparable to yelling "******" in Harlem, then you have a very warped view of politics. I, for one, am appalled at the disgraceful behavior of these "peace" activists. Those activists who beat up the opposition (as well as those of you who have defended their "right" to do so) give us all a bad name.

...And I'm against the war in Iraq and have protested it PEACEFULLY.

Protesting does not give you free reign to beat up anyone who disagrees with you (or even anyone who obnoxiously disagrees with you).

 

They got put in their place.

 

They weren't "Peace" activist, the PW steped on the toes on Anarchist/Revolunaires. It is not like yelling "******" in Harlem it was like yelling "******" in the middle of a Black Panther march. Either PW was tring to inciting a riot or are stupid since what would you think would happen if piss off the fraction of the anti-bush movement that actully wouldn't mind a violent revolution?

 

Yelling "Fire!" in a theater is against the law because you only have freedom of speech as long as it doesn't impeech on other's rights.
The others you are allowed to do, it just isn't smart.

 

Well, that sets the anti war movement back an awful lot!!!! Geez, how are we supposed to support a group who is as violent at heart as the war lovers? Golly, why is it nobody seems to understand that you can't be a hypocrite and still get your point across!!!

 

Uhh the people they pissed is not anti-war. The PW went after the faction of anti-bush that goal is the overthrow of the ruling class and peace is not a primary concern for them yet the Iraq war is due to its class war signifance.

"When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die." -Jean-Paul Sarte

 

The article says they "mistook them for wimpy nonviolent hippies" (an easy mistake to make at a supposedly anti-war rally). It's not like they sought out the most violent protesters in the entire crowd and started harassing them personally. They were just counter-protesting (I don't see anything to suggest that they were being obnoxious about it, but even if they were, they shouldn't have to expect physical violence). I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to be able to voice one's opinion without getting beaten up for it.

Ironically, if the situation was reversed and the vast majority of protesters were on the side of a cause you didn't agree with, you would be furious that the counter-protesters got beat up. You, sir, are a hypocrite. Please stop associating yourself with the anti-war movement, lest the mainstream population thinks we're all as idiotic as you.

 

I've been to peace rallies where counter-protesters were off to the side, holding their signs and voicing their opinions and the protesters respected their right to be there. They DID NOT march into the middle of the rally shouting and disrupting it. That goes beyond merely voicing one's opinion. I don't think they should have been beaten up, but I wouldn't have a problem with them being physically expelled and their signs torn up. And if they returned after that, then go ahead and beat them up.

 

I see. So they only have the right to free speech as long as they stay off to the side, away from the main event? Sounds like the Bush Administration's policies toward protesters to me...

If the protesters have the right to be at the rally, shouting and marching down the streets, the counter-protesters do too.

 

Hey the counter protesters didn't have critical mass.

Look we even split the violent and non-violent when we have to. You forget Quebec City were the orginizers sent the violent protestors to the barricades and the non-violent away from them.

Now I can bet if this was like Quebec City these counter-protestors wouldn't follow these orders then cry when they get caught up in a riot when violent protestors storm the police lines. But this time the counter-protestors were lucky since the violent fraction is not stupid enough to start a riot with that much security.

 

Look, it's just this simple. If you go into a crowd and attempt to make them attack you, there's a good chance they will. It doesn't really matter why the crowd is there or what cause they're chanting for. Don't provoke a crowd or you'll get beat up. I think that we can all agree on that, although we can also recognise the maturity of a crowd that would manage to restrain itself.

But about this hypocrite charge... We're not complaining about the occasional lynching of pro-choice demonstrators at pro-life marches or something like that, although that sucks. What we're complaining about is the prolonged, systematic campain undertaken by the USA's intelligence aperatus to disrupt and destroy dissident groups and culture, through such means as intimidation, infiltration, arrest, and the use of agent provocatuers (those who infiltrate groups or crowds and attempt to make their actions more violent).

This was well documented during the 70's by the theft and release of documents from the FBI detailing their COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) opperation to suppress anti-war and civil rights groups. It took a break for a decade or so after that, but it has returned since the death of Hoover. And it's worse than ever after the PATRIOT act. Did you know that a government agent can legaly sneak into your home, go through your files and your computer, and leave again without even informing you? And with almost no judicial oversight. All the FBI has to do is tell a rubber-stamp court specificaly created for the purpose that they are investigating something having to do with terrorism, and they're looking through my documents. That's just one example. If someone asks, I'll go further into the alarming things that are now actually legal for the government to do, as well as documentation of what's been done in the past even when it was illegal.

At any rate, we're talking about two completely different levels of violation of free speach. It's hard to honestly compare someone getting beaten up after deliberately provoking a crowd to direct government oppression. I think that any who try do so out of ignorance of the situation or for partisan reasons, rather than a sincere desire to debate the truth.

 

I do believe in freedom of expression for all, but there are acceptable limits. Obscenity and vulgarity shouldn't be regulated? If someone were to say to my face that my mother's a whore, don't tell me I can walk away (reasoning that he's just exercising his freedom of speech) but I can't shut him up (with a punch in the mouth).

Granted, that's an extreme example. But disruption is a form of expression as well, one that should not be tolerated. Walking into the middle of a rally with the intent of disrupting it goes beyond counter-protesting. Your freedom of expression ends when you disregard someone else's freedom of exression.

 

No, absolutely not. That's just an invitation to censorship. If John Ashcroft decides that naked Greek statues are vulgar, that doesn't mean he has a right to prevent people from seeing them.

If that's the excuse you offer in the courtroom when you're on trial for assault and battery, I think the judge and jury would be less than impressed.

Were the counter-protesters blocking the protesters' path, or physically threatening them, or somehow preventing them from exercising their freedom of expression? If all they were doing was standing there with signs and occasionally shouting an obnoxious comment, then their conduct was no different than that of the protesters.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

i like that quote yo. reading that article makes me so sick. that small little group of PW's had their rights to do what they did, but placing themselves in the middle of protestors was completely mindless. Placing themselves across the street from the anti-war protestors would have been completely decent because they would be voicing their opinion the same way that the anti-war protestors were. Dude, they were there trying to mock the protestors. Their name mocks the protestors and they're not trying to do anything but protest the protestors and keep them from doing what they are trying to change. I hate the way people are so ignorant!

 

Wait...so you're saying that you have the right to beat the shit out of anyone you think is "mocking" you? If there was a protester at the rally with a sign that said "Republicans are nazis" or something like that, would any Republicans have the right to go up and assault the protester? Of course not.

I repeat my thought experiment: Imagine that the roles were reversed, and the counter-protesters were on the same side as you on whatever issue. You KNOW that you would be shocked that they were beaten. You KNOW you would, even though you won't admit it. YOU are the one who is being ignorant by trying to justify this horrible conduct.

 

hmmm i dont remember saying i agreed with them beating the PW's or saying anything remotely close to saying that I would beat them. I am completely against any form of violence, so naturally I would be opposed to that idea. I'm saying that the PW's were ignorant for doing that. They were wrong. I guess I just failed to mention that they were beaten. Which makes no sense why you would assume i was pro violence. thats why i read this thread yo. because i do stand for anti violence. i was only stating on the fact that the PW's were wrong in the way they were trying to voice their opinion. thats the bottom line. I'm sorry you felt compelled to argue that with a statement not in much reference to what i was saying