NYC Dyke March

What are they protesting exactly?

>>131097351
'Cause it's not really protesting if you need permission from the government

>>131097968

The rising water level.

>>131097351
It's not. However, NYC is so cucked that they won't do anything if more than 100 people show up. Safety first you know.

>>131097982
I do agree with you. However this is clearly sponsored and is backed by our overlord Google. If it was truly organic, why would it have a route plotted on Google Maps with a blurb? I wonder who is behind this....

File: 1486337261635.gif (263KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 600x300px

>>131097351
>why is this allowed pol?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

>>131097968
>Protesting what they think Trump will do
>Protesting what I HOPE Trump will do

>visibility

What's wrong with these people

>>131098217
What is unlawful assembly?

>>131097982
mass gatherings are an enormous hindrance and public hazard in places like new york. Permits are just giving the NYPD a heads up for traffic and crowd controls, otherwise people stampede, traffic gets awful, etc. Your cause can be delusional as fuck, but they won't care as long as you give notice for reasons above. ffs they let nogs protest blatantly calling for cop's death

File: American flag.jpg (10KB, 272x185px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 272x185px

>>131098314
Unlawful assembly is an encroachment on our rights, but the same as the 2nd Amendment has been encroached on. The 2A says "Shall Not Be Infringed". The 1A says "Congress Shall Make No Law".

It's pretty clear speech.

>>131098576>>131098314


>but the same
*just the same

>>131098576
Thousands of retards gathering and blocking the streets of NYC pretty much constitute "breaching the peace of the community." This constitutes a riot. How is this protected under the 1A? Being honest senpai.

File: doradus the whale.png (400KB, 1499x4584px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1499x4584px

> 'heavy' traffic.

>>131098992
Depends on if there's violence or not. If it's nonviolent, then it's protected by the First Amendment. Just because we don't like the other side doesn't mean they don't have the same Constitutional protections we do.

>>131098026
underrated

>>131099182
I have seen plenty of non-violent unlawful gatherings that were dispersed by the police for being classified as a riot. With my own eyes here in they city and in tons of videos on youtube (mostly in portland)

I don't think this is protected by 1A my friend

File: 1438904722321.gif (844KB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 200x150px

>>131098026

File: 1497591925323.png (211KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 2000x1333px

>>131099471
It is protected by the 1A, and those officers breaking non-violent protests up should be shot.

But, it's not 1789 anymore, I suppose. Who needs the constitution?

File: 1490230262002.jpg (123KB, 500x542px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 500x542px

>>131099661
So police shouldn't physically remove protestors blocking highways and roads because it is protected by the 1A? I don't think so buddy.

>>131099471
it should be but seeing as how you're also an nyc resident you know that this state doesn't care about the rights of its citizens

>>131099973
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Then of course, Congress proceeds to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press; and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can piss and moan all you want, but there's no Amendment in the Bill of Rights that isn't regularly ignored by the Federal and State governments.

File: seal_of_approval_by_magnaen-d5oa99s.jpg (97KB, 900x862px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 900x862px

>>131098026
>The rising water level.

I see what you did there.

>>131099182
>non-violent
You can disturb the peace and infringe on others rights without being violent. Your logic amounts to:
>I'm going to swing my arms and walk at you
>not my fault you got hit
They would be disrupting the lives of everyone that needed to use the streets.

>>131100953
Yes but muh Constitution

>>131100953
But they're using the streets instead. Are the streets public property or privately owned toll roads?

>>131098026
heh. moderate chuckle.

>>131101163
>muh Constitution
Go back to whatever shithole you emigrated from.

>>131100953
False equivalency. Streets are created with a singular purpose. If they wanted to assemble they could use any number of the public parks meant for people to gather. If I go lie down on the sidewalk behind your car preventing you from getting to work, should the cops be able to move me?

File: most_common.jpg (346KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1024x1024px

Traffic was awful enough without 600 pound carpet munchers clogging the street.

>>131101243
oops. see>>131101622
Public lands don't mean free use lands. They have a purpose. It's the same reason you can't live in a public park or building.
>I'M JUST ASSEMBLING FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME!!!
You also can't occupy government buildings and prevent the officials from doing their jobs.