WHO WILL STEP UP TO SUE THE PROTEST LEADERS?

dfu | 2-18-03 | dfu

[smith288]

If anything, they should be accused of abhorant stupidity. They are anti-Bush and dont care two turds about the Iraqi people.

[finnman69]

It seems to me the most likely possible winner of a lawsuit would be a buisness that was damaged or a municipality that had to shell out high costs out of the norm.

[Catspaw]

There have been attempts for municipalities to charge groups for protesting (beyond the usual cost of a permit), or putting other restrictions on them (for example, making them buy insurance while other groups don't have to), but cities have been sued, primarily the ACLU on behalf of the KKK and other neo-Nazi groups, and in general, the ACLU has won.

The place to start would be the First Amendment and content neutrality.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Arent protest organizers supposed to have insurance or a bond to cover any damage to property?

In a lot of cases, whenever a group uses government facilities and equipment for a function, they have to be insured and/or bonded.....in case any damage arises.

I think the protest organizers should be held liable if any in their group committed damage or criminal activity.

The Constitution guarantees the right to speak......but not the right to destroy property or punch-out police horses

[doug from upland]

Absolutely. If my car was burned in a protest, why should I have to make a claim to my insurance company? If the street was shut down so I lost a day of business recipts at my business, why should I suffer that loss? Someone is responsible.

[Catspaw]

It could also be a business who experienced losses out of the norm because customers couldn't get to their place of business--retail stores and restaurants, for example--because of the protest.

[doug from upland]

Duh -- "responsibility"

[doug from upland]

Would you also support holding liable organizers of an anti-abortion rally if some of the attendees vandalized an abortion clinic?

===================

First, welcome to FR. Is that a trick question? What do you think my answer would be?

[MEGoody]

Lets be careful here, folks. Anything that is used against the anti-war protesters could be used against anti-abortion protesters. (Come to think of it, there was some attempt to use the RICO law against some anti-abortion protesters. Maybe that's an idea. Beat them at their own game.)

[pgyanke]

You have to consider the cost of what you propose. Let's set the clock back a few years and put Clinton in office. Many of us would likely want to be heard in the political spectrum that Clinton is a fraud and an embarassment. Do we want to put impediments to assembly into our laws? Would we want the government to have the right to refuse our ability to peaceably assemble if they disagree with our purpose? Could there be a million mom march?

I agree there is a problem when the protesters turn violent... they should be arrested, tried and incarcerated. However, if we make a blanket right of refusal or registration with the state, we're crossing a line never intended by the founders.

We have a right to peaceably assemble. When it turns violent, take action on the perpetrators. It's an easy thing to say and much harder to do in practice but I think the alternative is much worse.

[doug from upland]

If I knew what your answer would be I wouldn't have asked the question.

====================

Sorry, you are new here and I didn't know whether you were a liberal jerking my chain and asking a foolish question or you really did want an answer. The answer is obvious --- someone is responsible for damages, no matter the political leanings of the protestors. The businessman is an innocent victim and should be compensated for actual damages (not a million dollar phony baloney lawsuit). I don't like abortion clinics, however, if they are operating legally and with a business permit, I don't have the right to burn the building. I do have the right to try to use the political process and the courts to change things.

[doug from upland]

I appreciate your point. Other than a few kooks who have been arrested and tried, do those on the political right cause damage when they demonstrate? It really is the left that is the problem, and I want those bastards to pay when they do it. The rhetoric and actions at some of these demonstrations encourage violence.

[freeeee]

Using lawsuits to shut down free speech?

Who are you people, college administrators? Planned Parenthood executives?

No? Well then stop behaving like them.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
- Voltaire

[1Old Pro]

Here's my response: PROTESTORS AREN'T ANTI-WAR, They are anti-Bush and anti-American

[doug from upland]

What is your position? Should the innocent business owner suffer the loss? Should he have to pay for what someone else did? I presume the leaders would have insurance to cover the losses. That insurance needs to pay. If they do a million dollars of damage in Seattle, perhaps that insurance is going to be costly. That is their problem, not those who lost millions of dollars.

[pgyanke]

I respectfully disagree. The left is a LARGER problem, but we have our own kooks on the right (abortion clinic bombers). I'm as anti-abortion as they come...it's an abomination to God... however, taking a life in this circumstance is murder, wrong, and terribly inconsistent. It won't save the unborn child as the mother will simply seek another provider. The problem is the law and no amount of carnage on the streets will save the babies, it will only embolden the opposition and give them ammunition to dismiss our arguments... but I digress...

As an earlier poster asked, "should we hold the organizers of a demonstration against abortion responsible for the actions of the kooks who show up?" I say, NO. The answer is to arrest the kooks when they cause mayhem. Over time, there will be less of them to cause trouble. Example: it's always the same people protesting globalization whether it's Seattle or another city. If we arrested and incarcerated instead of "catch and release", there would be far fewer of these same idiots for the next event.

This is an argument that is less about peaceably assembling to be a political voice and more about law enforcement. The violent protestors have been emboldened by "catch and release" and this is creating the environment where people and businesses get hurt. You must enforce the laws to have peace and you can only enforce the law against the responsible body. If it's the organization, take them to task. If it's the individual, then they should be incarcerated and the organization should not suffer because some idiot came out to start trouble.