Chicago City Council Approves NATO/G8 Ordinances Amidst Protest

The Guardian gets it:
Outlawing dissent: Rahm Emanuel's new regime
On the pretext of policing upcoming G8 and Nato summits, Chicago's mayor has awarded himself draconian new powers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...

Tafter you can read the above and get a basic education before you post anymore.

Oh, and on your statement that I was equating the "target" speech with OWS's speech, that wasn't at all my intention.  I find the crap leading up to the Gifford's shooting to be completely reprehensible where I actually agree with a lot of the speech of the OWS movement.

My point is that both groups are very passionate about their causes and that they are both willing to ignore practical realities and potentially even laws to make their speech heard.  I vehemently disagree with that entitled attitude.  There are boundaries (both from a legal and a decency perspective) and those boundaries should be respected.  That lack of respect is a common theme among passionate extreme activists.  I deplore it.

I realize you disagree, but could you at least try to understand the points I'm making and be civil about it?

Please, it's easy to "see what you did there" by trying to associate protestors with more ugly/stupid events and groups.  Be a man and just own up to your comments.

Also it's funny that you talk about huge fines being simple deterrents, considering just yesterday they were settling with plaintiffs over CPD arresting truckloads of protestors, tourists, and shoppers for doing nothing wrong during one of the Iraq war protests.

OK.  You are in my brain.  You are right.  OWS == "target ad" people. :BIGGGEST ROLLEYES EVAR:

You are such an ugly person.  I clearly laid out what my argument actually is and you ignore it, choosing to believe whatever is going on inside your own head.  You don't argue in good faith and constantly hurl ugly accusations at people.  Be a fucking man and admit when you are wrong.  More: actually LISTEN to the people you are talking to.  If you did, you'd find people don't always disagree with you and that there are different perspectives.  As it is, every conversation is a conspiracy.  "You SAY this, but you REALLY believe something else."  Give me a fucking break.

The only person remotely qualified to tell you what *I* think on a subject is me. Quit putting words and thoughts in people's mouths. Debate honestly. Be a fucking man.

FWIW, I actually agree with you on the Iraq war protest arrests.  They were completely out of bounds and government deserves to pay.  Hard.

Wut?

Linking to a complete opinion piece that reads like a conspiracy theory and calling that "education"?  Come on man, you aren't even trying.

Listen:  I dislike the park restrictions and I even think the existing laws for usage of our public parks is complete crap.  Laws should be geared at preventing unwanted use of the parks, not at keeping all people out of the parks at night.  I think tent cities and encampments in our parks should be prevented, but this isn't the way to do it.  I also look at some of the other restrictions as strange (like the "dog in a parade" restriction). 

But the rest?  They make sense to me.  They are clearly designed to make the protestors think twice before doing something illegal (bigger fines) and to give the city clear warning before big actions and raise the bar to entry a bit (bigger fees for parades and more restrictions) and increasing surveillance. Makes sense (though I'd prefer the surveillance wasn't permanent).

The hyperbole from the far left on this (yes, that author is very, very far left) is over the top.  I get that you guys think your right to protest is paramount.  But not everyone sees it that way.  I think the protestors are in the wrong and are pushing the boundaries of the 1st amendment to the point of breaking.  Though you disagree, surely you are aware that I'm not the only person that believes this.

Calling me an "emotional" "tumor" because I disagree with you is just crass name calling.  We can have an adult discussion on this if you'd like, but you'd have to keep your finger off the nuclear button.

"Still, the concessions won’t be enough for protest groups."

Indeed. And that is the crux of the issue. Once you make clear that you cannot be satisfied, you'd better be able to win elections or nobody cares.

What a silly comment, as if there's not context or measure of concessions.  Why don't you two just start calling protest leaders "poopy heads" and elevate your argument a bit.

Ah, Navin. Always denying that elections matter.

Poopy head.

There will always be people that believe they should be able to say whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want and be completely free from the repercussions of their speech and actions because of some romanticized and unrealistic notion about what the 1st amendment means.  This has little to do with left or right, social or fiscal stances, etc.  Whenever people want to get *their* voice heard, any tactic, no matter how disruptive or how detrimental to their neighbors and society at large, is acceptable.

Think:  anti-abortionist protest tactics at Planned Parenthood.  Or:  tea partiers wearing big guns to  their rallies.  Or: the "target" ads preceding the Giffords shooting.  Or:  the OWS movement.  Or:  G8 protests.  Or:  PETA, everything they do, ever.

In their passion for their stances, their candidates, their issues, common sense goes out the window.  The only, overriding priority is to get their voices heard.

Or, you know, their 1st amendment rights are being taken away.

Pathetic.

I love that not a single thing in your post has anything to do with what's being hashed out at City Hall.

It's also funny that Tafter is so unbiased and unemotionally attached that he almost only posts on protest related articles only now...lol.

This would be the point where, were I Navin, I'd pull out something about bullying or cyber stalking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Phew...I've only committed an informal fallacy.  I'd be just mortified had I flipped out and committed an ad hom or something.

Out of curiosity, what is the issue at hand in your opinion.  Because, in my opinion, the issue is entitled people with extremist views who fail to see the rational limits of free speech and freedom assembly.

You are, of course, free to disagree about what the "point" is.  But to claim that you and only you decide what the issue is...well that's just not very humble.  You are not the arbiter.

While I don't think that your point is invalid, there are obviously rational limits to free speech and free assembly, i.e. the classic "Can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre" example. 

However, the issue that I see here is that is that there are obstacles being put up to help prevent the exercise of fundamental right, right to peaceful assembly, in reaction to a singular event, the G8 summit. By fundamental I mean is in the Bill of Rights.

This ordinance is being used to discourage people from exercising this right. If it does get out of hand, and there are people hurt, and property destroyed, I want the people responsible to be held accountable, on both sides of the line.

I don't think people are asking for a free hand to do and say whatever they want whenever they want, they are asking to not be burdened with extra consequences aimed specifically at them.

Governmental decisions are incredibly hard to have reversed, even temporary/sunset ones, and should not be used in such a ham handed sort of way. 

I see where you are coming from and I tend to come down on the side of protestors so long as they aren't engaged in behavior that is completely disruptive, intended to intimidate, or in recent cases, intended to permanently occupy and re-purpose public spaces to use that their own soapbox.  A person or group should be allowed to get their voice out there, but the public shouldn't be forced to listen or to bend to the will of a vocal minority. 

And I'm not entirely comfortable with all of the measures that have been passed by the city council and I don't love the fact that most (all?) will be permanent.

All of that said, the stance of the groups who will be protesting the G8 borders on the absurd.  It basically boils down to:  "why are you picking on us?  we are peaceful!  we just want our voices heard!!"  To which I respond:  you realize wikipedia and youtube exist, right?  And that we can look up the violent protests at prior summits?

The city of Chicago has every reason to be seriously paranoid about what might happen during the summit.  They are a magnet for extremists across the globe who have caused serious havoc in other host cities.  There are reasons for these measures, even if I dislike some of the specific measures.

Perfect world: protestors can protest and attempt to make their voices heard, the police keep it under control and I don't have to work from home for a week and a half.  The scary thing is:  I don't think that is a perfect world scenario for many of the protestors planning on being in Chicago in May.

Well said, once again Tafter's emotions and personal grudges against the very concept of protest have caused him to release a babbling brook of ill-informed jibber jabber.

Kudos to that obnoxious idiot connecting the Giffords Shooting with Stand Up Chicago, Occupy etc.

Tumor.

"babbling brook of ill-informed jibber jabber"

"Tumor."

Hahaha.  It is just so easy to get you to act like a complete ass and embarrass yourself.

You have a total inability to follow a complete argument and respond coherently to it.  Then you have the balls to turn around and claim the same of others.  You can't seem to participate in an argument without pulling this crap.  Your posting history is replete with examples.

So please, save the invective and do a little soul searching.  Such hostility speaks volumes about your personality.

You have a total inability to follow a complete argument and respond coherently to it.

An argument in which you completely misinterpret, misrepresent events, and are even so scummy to try to compare these Chicago protestors to the people that fueled the fires of the Gifford's shooting.  What a pathetic weasel you are.

hahaha

I'll just follow D's lead:  poopyhead.

Phew. You must really be relieved Wikipedia is back.

Sorry, is this a more reputable source? http://www.philosophicalsociet...

Note Tafter's response, which explicitly states what I was 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...