Replies

“Yes peaceful demonstrations are indeed an absolute right on public grounds.”

“We don’t need permits to practice our religion here in the USA, or to speak in the public square.”

I guess the both of you failed to read the part where he’s been arrested for doing his type of demonstration in the past. He obviously is not practicing his religious freedoms, he’s purposely going to where the people who are there that have legally garnished a permit and he is using his beliefs to protest a difference with the people that are there.

If he had gone a few blocks away from them, where he could be sure he wouldn’t cause a physical altercation, he’d have been fine. But he is misusing his freedoms to try to disrupt those freedoms of the people there. He can’t legally do what he did, and he knew it.

“Guess you do not believe in the constitution?”

“I did not serve my country and defend the constitution so people like you can decide when a person is allowed to exercise their free speech in public spaces.”

I was a member of the military, 22 between 1968 and 1995, with a couple of years in between to heal, and then NAF followed by DOD where I retired in 2013. If I didn’t believe in the document I swore to protect and defend, and have paid the price for that physically, I wouldn’t also believe that I did that for everyone’s privileges. And that includes those who I don’t think are right in their interpretation of what’s right or wrong. They have the privilege of being wrong, but they have to have the opportunity to do so and be corrected. Arrest does that if there is no other way. I don’t determine my allegiance based upon my beliefs, but upon everyone’s privileges. I consider myself a law abiding individual which has to include everyone’s privileges.

The reason the local government demands a permit for this is so they can use their position by way of law enforcement to ensure a peaceful event. And they are expected to act in a manner to keep the peace. So the permitted group has no more right to violate that peace any more than Mr. Meinecke does. Mr. Meinecke has broken the law before using the same tactics he used here. He knows he shouldn’t do it but is determined to violate the law. He’s arrested.

The individual, if it was only one, that threaten Mr. Meinecke also should be arrested for destroying his Bible as he was in violation of the law, also.

Most permits for events require everything from content use, identification to insurance of the ground they are on, cleaning the area after the event, and even if the information they are passing to the public has been cleared with the copyrighted organization.

But even a street preacher if standing on a corner preaching, and blocks traffic or the sidewalk, will be asked to move along. That’s disrupting someone else’s privileges. And many states require a permit to preach on the streets. It depends upon the local area. I don’t write the laws, but I spent most of my life helping those that stayed within them to be offered the chance to do what they wished. It’s not God that stops what you are saying. It is man that makes the laws, to include the Constitution that creates the interpretation of the laws.

wy69

"I guess the both of you failed to read the part where he’s been arrested for doing his type of demonstration in the past. He obviously is not practicing his religious freedoms, he’s purposely going to where the people who are there that have legally garnished a permit and he is using his beliefs to protest a difference with the people that are there."

You are the one widely uninformed thinking a permit prevents others from protesting an event at a public space.

I guess you missed the part where it was in a public space and I now know you have no idea what a permit for that group was for. A permit is not to stop others from protesting you, it ensures that things like large groups have an understanding of the use of the space and their responsibilities to use it safely, such as preventing or managing things like blocking traffic.

Also they have video, he did not initiate any physical altercation, unless they had a restraining order he had every right to be in the place he was as they did. You even bringing this up shows your dishonesty and willingness to lie in support of pushing your narrative over facts.

Take a little time to educate yourself on what a permit actually does and how free speech is protected. I get you think you deserve the right to stop free speech you disagree with by using a corrupt government, but that is not how a proper government nor our constitution works. here is a link I would guess you will ignore as it easily refutes all your assumed points on how you want the world to work. In your instance I suggest you look up the term heckler's veto. You cannot manufacture a perceived threat as an excuse to shut down some one else's free speech. https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/legal_features/constitutional_qa_the_right_to_protest

“I guess the both of you failed to read the part where he’s been arrested for doing his type of demonstration in the past.”

You know, I read that part, but I missed the part where he was actually convicted of any crime. Isn’t that the way it works in the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

So if what you say is true, then where are his convictions?

“And many states require a permit to preach on the streets.”

I might remind you that many states have tried to require a great many things that turned out to be unconstitutional.