[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="PurpleMan5000"] The Westboro Baptist Church actually plans ahead and applies for permits to conduct their hateful protests legally. The Occupy Wall Street movement just shows up and camps out in front of businesses. That is the difference. If you want to organize an OWS protest in your city, you only need to apply for a permit. There is nothing that says you cannot protest.PurpleMan5000
Yeah because they got a permit, that makes it A-OK :roll: (legally you are correct, but then again anyone with a brain knows "current" legality is a freaking joke!)
Oh and because the state/city/parish/county/district will sure give anyone a permit who wants to protest right?!?
Secondly the ability to spy on any citizen, the ability to detain indefinitely any citizen, and do so without due process of any citizen, that "threatens the national security." This includes (buts sure as hell isn't limited to) protestors. Now unless you can show me where I am wrong, and really, I will have to respectfully say its not so simple.
Lastly, having to buy permits to exercise freedom of speech in the so called "free country." :lol: LOL
I agree that the permitting system is a bit ridiculous, but I was just pointing out that your comparison of Fred Phelps' clan to OWS wasn't exactly apples to apples. It also makes sense that a city would be able to tell you where to set your protest up and how long you can continue protesting, within reason. If you have a bunch of protesters camp out in front of a business, that protest will damage that business's ability to attract customers.Also, this does not give anyone the ability to spy on "any" citizen. The ISP simply has the ability to spy on its own paying customers and it loses that ability as soon as those customers find somebody else to provide them internet service. It truly does suck for those who do not have the option to switch to an ISP who chooses not to spy on them, though.
Paragraph 1, I see, and I agree within reason.
The damage of the business' ability to attract customers, I can see how that would be a problem, of course. What isn't mentioned however, is that it is a one-sided setup. meaning that ^^ is bad, but if a business screws over most of its customers (which is far from rare in this corporatocracy) thats just known as business.This is one of the major issues. (now I am not saying every business damaged in that way, due to protests, deserves it)
Paragraph 2, Is a bit of a mis-understanding, I wasn't speaking of this situation (what the thread is initially about) about the:Secondly the ability to spy on any citizen, the ability to detain indefinitely any citizen, and do so without due process of any citizen, that "threatens the national security." This includes (buts sure as hell isn't limited to) protestors. Now unless you can show me where I am wrong, and really, I will have to respectfully say its not so simple. I was referring to the latest bills (since Patriot act) that have allowed this to happen. I wasn't speaking of this "anti-piracy" measure, but of laws and legislation that has been put into effect that does allow what I have in Italic.
And as added, I unfortunately don't know of any other ISPs in my area that offer decent speeds, and a decent bandwidth cap, that isn't AT&T or Comcast. Both (from what I gather) are in on this.
Log in to comment