Do over: Who can protest where?

[BainsBane]

Sorry folks. I made a major mistake in my first version of this poll so I have to do a new one.

Apologies to all concerned.

7 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Any group should protest anywhere and anyone they see fit, in accordance with the law or take legal consequences
	3 (43%)
	Any group can protest any GOP candidate or event
	0 (0%)
	Any group can protest anyone except Bernie
	0 (0%)
	Any group can protest if they ask nicely first
	2 (29%)
	They only need to ask nicely when protesting Bernie
	0 (0%)
	Only groups I approve of can protest and then should never protest anyone I like
	0 (0%)
	No one should protest or criticize Bernie because they should automatically know he is their ally, always and forever.
	2 (29%)
	They can protest with guns but not their outside voices
	0 (0%)
	Protest is bad because it's rude and noisy
	0 (0%)
	Tase 'em
	0 (0%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[stone space]

1. Do over reply.

"And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks"

Isaiah 2-4

[BainsBane]

3. Righteous

I wish everyone would watch it and see your point. Thanks for posting it.

[leveymg]

35. Not righteous to attack the one closest to you in the trenches. Stupid.

No matter how imperfect you may feel Bernie is, he's the only candidate who is really acting in your interest on the broad spectrum of issues that impact PoC. This effort to smear him only helps the other side. It is anything but righteous.

[BainsBane]

78. Wrong

They protest Democrats because African Americans have put Democrats in office for decades. They are the single most reliable Democratic voting block. They expect Bernie, O'Malley, Clinton, and every other Democratic candidate to address the epidemic of killings of black people. BLM and other AA are saying they are no longer willing to provide the votes to put Democrats in office who then take them for granted. Bernie had no plan to address racism before the BLM actions--none. He subsumed it all to economics, which ignores the reality of life for African Americans. Sandra Bland had a good job. She was stopped by police, locked up and died anyway. Those experiences happen over and over again. BLM has changed the political debate, and that is pissing off a lot of white folks who see this election as about regaining their lost privilege. Those days are gone, and they need to stay gone.

Antiwar protests, movements against racial violence, human rights: They all trump the comfort of the white bourgeoisie, at least they do for leftists and those who care about equality. Those with a vision of politics tethered to their own self-entitlement see it differently.

[leveymg]

88. So focus all that righteous indignation upon the establishment. Bernie is the furthest

from controlling how the Democratic Party has historically, and inadequately, responded to the demands of PoC and other disadvantaged groups. Tactically, this smear Bernie campaign is like shooting the guy next to you in the trench because you're mad at the top Democratic politicians and Generals who control the war.

BLM is tapping into legitimate anger, but misdirecting it. It is alienating erstwhile allies. The strategy does not make sense unless what they want to do is divide and conquer Democrats along racial lines and help maintain the status quo.

[orpupilofnature57]

102. BLM has exploited the fact that he's not an insider , who guides them to these delusions, African

American power brokers, not African Americans .

[virtualobserver]

2. to quote my favorite NBA player

[BainsBane]

5. I prefer ploughshares into swords

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=515081

[virtualobserver]

7. I wish you the best

[BainsBane]

12. Thank you. Same to you.

[RichVRichV]

4. You're getting closer to having a valid option.

The correct one would be "Any group or individual can protest anywhere and anyone they see fit in accordance with the constitution".


The right isn't limited to groups.

People can protest anyone and anywhere allowed. It doesn't always mean they should or that there won't be consequences (non legal).

The right is granted constitutionally and can't be prohibited by law without proper judicial reasoning. However this right only applies publicly to goverment influence. Privately it can be restricted.

[BainsBane]

6. Consider that implied

and of course we aren't speaking of the United States of reality but rather DU.

[RichVRichV]

8. In that case

Anything is fair game so long as you get a sympathetic jury.

[BainsBane]

9. One can only hope.

[ChazII]

10. If this helps

I voted to leave it.

[BainsBane]

11. Seriously?

Well thank you for that. Sad it was alerted on though.

[RichVRichV]

13. I'm pretty sure he was making a joke.

[ismnotwasm]

14. S'allright

I like this one too

[MannyGoldstein]

15. When white supremacists who've spent decades fighting

for civil rights need to be made to bow down.

[George II]

69. I've yet to see anyone post the quote calling Sanders a "white supremacist".

[whatchamacallit]

80. No, just his supporters and all of Seattle

Which we're told reflects on the kind of person and leader Bernie is

[George II]

82. I haven't seen that exact quote, either.

[kath]

16. Can sockpuppets vote in this poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans

[QC]

17. Jury results...

On Thu Aug 13, 2015, 02:31 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Can sockpuppets vote in this poll?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=515310

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

ad hominem attack, shit stirring to make personal attacks rather than address the subject. It was years ago. There have been thousands of socks since, and this contributes nothing to the discussion.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 13, 2015, 02:37 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, but it's a legitimate point. People who make socks to get around the rules always get nuked, except for this person.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If a poster has a history of disruption, that disruption is fair game when considering their contemporary behavior and motives in posting OPs with clear divisive intentions.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's too funny to hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. what a great jury!

I take back everything bad I ever said about the jury system.

Juries: You Rock!

[Capt. Obvious]

28. And on this side

we have the people who will cite these jury results as proof the system is broken.

Hopefully one will start an ATA thread about it.

[ChazII]

100. Thank you, WS

I have never disclosed when I have served on a jury. Until now. I voted to leave it for various reasons. One of my reasons voting to leave it is we have had various members having responses unfairly alerted. BainsBaine is one who I felt is being unfairly targeted.

[azurnoir]

18. arf apparently :)

[Duckhunter935]

21. Why is this person

Still allowed to be a member after breaking the rules? Interesting

[PowerToThePeople]

24. Very good question.

n/t

[Romulox]

32. I think the answer may be "HillaryMojo".

[Duckhunter935]

67. Or, selective enforcement

Who would have thunk it.

[George II]

71. Or, shock of shocks, the rules were NOT broken!

[Capt. Obvious]

76. Please proceed Governor

[Duckhunter935]

79. So having a sock

Is okay, why was that account closed down if nothing was done wrong?

[George II]

81. I wear socks every day.

[Duckhunter935]

83. Cute

[Romulox]

95. That's obviously incorrect, since Baine's sock was PPRed. nt

[Romulox]

31. Excellent post. Why is BainsBane allowed to flout the rules here?

Sockpuppet of BainsBane, which appears to have been created to get around limits on alerting imposed by the software.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans

[George II]

73. What rule, specifically, has been broken?

[Romulox]

75. The rule against having Sock Puppets. That's why Bain's sock was PPRed. nt

[Duckhunter935]

84. Some are more equal than others

I never had to make up fake accounts flouting the rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

89. specifically using a sock puppet to circumvent rule enforcement.

it seems it is ok to have a sock puppet, it is how one uses a sock puppet that is the problem. If you use it to get around timeouts or alert lockouts or any of the other account restrictions that the software can impose, that is supposedly a TOS offense.

If you simply use a sock puppet to have a conversation with yourself, that's ok.

[kath]

92. So, that person who is on DU all the time talking with its 2nd identity? That's totally okay??

[Warren Stupidity]

93. I believe that this has been asked and answered repeatedly in Ask the Admins, and "yes".

[kath]

94. Thanks, Warren.

I really didn't know that. Never even entered ATA until the last month or so.

[Duckhunter935]

103. Why was the puppet tombstones then?

[George II]

96. And who might that "sock puppet" be?

[kath]

97. Try to keep up. see posts 16 and 31. Have you not read the thread, or are you being deliberately

obtuse? (been seeing a bit of that lately, among a certain group)

[George II]

98. Are you being deliberately insulting?

Those two posts are about someone who was banned more than two years ago.

So, my question still stands, or perhaps no one knows the answer so the insults fly?

[Capt. Obvious]

99. That poster loves to demand answers

Usually everyone ignores him. It's better that way.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Where is the "Sanders surges past Clinton in NH poll" option?

And as a follow up, when this poll goes as badly for you as the previous disaster, will you once more self delete and try again?

[BainsBane]

27. As badly for me?

How do you figure that? You think because a bunch of people show how they see their own candidate and comfort as more important than activism for black lives that constitutes going badly for me? Clearly, you have no idea of who you are talking to.
There is no point at which I confuse popularity with justice.

The reason I deleted is because I realized quite late into the process that I had forgotten the first option. That made the poll, even as a tongue and cheek commentary on inequality and deference for authority over leftist activism, null and void. So I made the change.

The answer to your own choice is probably best expressed through the final option, since it would seem you think the hostility toward that movement is responsible for that poll result. Otherwise, I cannot imagine how you think it relevant to this issue.

[ismnotwasm]

55. Remenber--these are the same people

Who think comparing black folks to "toast" is the height of hilarity. Also have repeatedly brought up the none-issue of your 'sock-puppet' in an attempt to discredit you. They got nothing else.

So sad.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. "make toast" to "protest"

the comparison was the right to protest and the right to toast.

Bernie supporters: Who can make toast and where?
Bernie supporters: Who can protest and where?

if you are going to call people racist and cite a post as proof, please do try to have the evidence right.

Nothing about "black folks":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=515107

Was in response to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=514590
author self deleted her embarrassing "mistake".

The efforts to portray Sanders and Sanders supporters as racist is vile.

[ismnotwasm]

64. I calls 'em like I sees 'em

Given some of the horrid things that have been said around here you can hardly blame me.

Well I suppose you could, and will.

That's ok

[frylock]

90. with a jaundiced eye

[BainsBane]

110. Dissent isn't taken well

even when tongue and cheek.

[George II]

74. Maybe she'll add that when it happens.

[el_bryanto]

22. I'd be curious also to find out under what circumstances you can criticize protesters

Or if once you acknowledge their right to protest, you can't then say that they are protesting in less than ideal ways.

Bryant

[BainsBane]

25. My view is the First Amendment protects your right to criticize

them and anyone else. However, when that is your priority, it is entirely appropriate that they not consider you an ally.

[BillZBubb]

39. By the same logic, if they protest YOU and call you white supremacists...

it is entirely appropriate that you not consider them an ally.

Unfortunately, you simply want a one way street. Your way.

[BainsBane]

111. If I behaved the same way

It would absolutely be legitimate to say the precise same thing. It has nothing to do with who the target of the protest is. Except I won't be making a protest for black lives about me because my feelings aren't the priority. What matters is stopping racist killings.

[el_bryanto]

60. Priority is interesting in this context

Surely the priority should be to move towards a more racially just America. If one criticizes a protest it is because one believes that protest to be ineffective or damaging to the greater cause. Agreeing with the root cause, doesn't require you to agree with any action taken in the name of that cause.

Bryant

[NCTraveler]

23. Where can a POC protest without threat of violence or racist language hurled at them.

Apparently nowhere.

Fact is, posters on this site have a great track record standing up for citizens rights to protest.

[NaturalHigh]

26. I'm totally cool with the right to protest if protesters respect the law.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with the protest tactics, and I don't have to like the protesters. I think that's the part you refuse to understand.

[MADem]

33. OCCUPY didn't respect the law. They engaged in lawbreaking every time they "urban camped."

When students pulled "sit ins" and assembled without permits to protest the Vietnam war, they were not respecting the law.

MLK broke the law non-violently all the time.

If people "respect the law" then how are they going to be "allowed" to protest, when protesting is prohibited, in essence? I'm having a tough time understanding that point you are making.

I don't always agree with protesters, either, and I can find them annoying, too, and I might even say as much. But that's our nation--we have to tolerate free expression!

[NaturalHigh]

38. "when protesting is prohibited"

I must have missed that Constitutional Amendment that banned protesting.

[MADem]

40. Spare me the snark--you're the one who initiated the bad premise re: "lawbreaking."

Or did you forget what you said?

You can read contextually--did you miss the piece about permits? You can't hold a protest in NYC without permits. You also can't camp overnight legally in parks. Loitering is against the law in many places. Obstructing a sidewalk or public way is also a violation in most municipalities.

All of these 'prohibitions' are part and parcel of protests. They have nothing to do with the Constitution.

[NaturalHigh]

42. "They have nothing to do with the Constitution."

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[MADem]

46. No, this isn't about disagreement--you were the one who talked about respecting the law.

I pointed out that Occupy and MLK didn't respect the law, and by way of retort you started making noise about the Constitution and snarking at me.

Sorry--there's no "disagreement" here. You just came up with a faulty premise and you're trying to back off while giving me the hand. I'm not buying it.

[NaturalHigh]

47. I'm not trying to back off - I don't agree with your premise...

that protest is against the law. It's a constitutional right in fact - freedom of assembly. You're the one who seems a little snarky this morning, and I have no interest in arguing with you. Goodbye.

[MADem]

50. No one is saying it's not a constitutional right--you're trying to pretend I was making that point

when anyone with a 6th grade reading level can clearly understand that I wasn't.

I was talking--and I provided examples, too--about legal barriers to protest, and I named them.

If you don't like snark, you shouldn't toss it. Particularly when it was totally unnecessary.

I can give as good as I get.

[Romulox]

29. Except if it's Hillary of course! Then any "protest" should be behind closed doors. nt

[R B Garr]

36. Bernie could protest when he was younger and we're all supposed to cheer

but now that he's a Presidential candidate, protesting is bad.

[Romulox]

37. Protests are supposed to happen in *public*. The "protests" of Hillary appear to take place in

smoke filled rooms.

[MADem]

43. I didn't see anyone smoking in that room. nt

[Romulox]

45. It's a figure of speech that everyone familiar with politics knows.

[MADem]

117. Yes, and it means "done in secret." Some secret--with the press right there to

take pictures...!

[leveymg]

49. BLM now has a seat in the smoking section. We're not supposed to notice that.

[m-lekktor]

41. and heckling the Obamas is also taboo, never good. only white supremicists like Bernie and his

vile supporters and then you can even physically shove him, an elderly jewish man, aside because it's only a boring stump speech being interrupted (JEEEZ YOU GUYS!!11 :majoreyesroll: )

[Romulox]

44. Hey. These protesters back the fabulously wealthy career politician because they want CHANGE.

[leveymg]

51. This strategy makes sense if BLM wants "a piece of the action." They seem to be getting it.

Attack the opponent of the fabulously wealthy career politician and then show up later to negotiate the award.

[Romulox]

54. A seat at the table of the Oligarchs is what many want. Hard to see the Oligarchs allowing

any fundamental change though. Thus the attempt to thread-the-needle to defend the economic status-quo while still appearing to critique structural racism--something which has, up until this moment, proven logically impossible.

[leveymg]

58. It is theoretically possible to have a racially blind oligarchy.

The Bush Cabinet comes to mind, but that only proves how easy it is for the American Right-wing to coopt a few willing minority accomplices in order to (im)prove the rule.

Fundamental change isn't what this racialist smear campaign against Sanders is about.

[Romulox]

59. Yes. Condi, Colin, and Clarence can live good lives while poverty festers in our inner cities. nt

[leveymg]

62. Precisely. n/t

[kath]

65. "Attack the opponent of the fabulously wealthy career politician and then show up later to negotiate

negotiate the award" (from the mega-wealthy career politician, for the reading impaired)

A-yup!

What a great system!

[leveymg]

66. Funny how that works.

[BainsBane]

68. That is what you think Black Lives Matter is about?

Is that what you tell yourself that to make yourself feeling better for showing you have complete contempt for a movement to protest an epidemic of racist violence? BLM doesn't back any candidate. They are leftist activists. Amazingly, their sole concern is not picking the next leader of the capitalist state but rather working to stop an epidemic of racist violence killing black people. Naturally that pales in comparison to the feelings and comfort of the self-entitled white bourgeoisie. It's been interesting to find out just how deeply conservative and conformist people who pretend to be leftists are. I can't even imagine what it must be like to have political concerns so narrow that the comfort of a politician and my own ego comes before human lives and combating racist violence.

Thom Hartman had words for that attitude you express.

At least people have made clear what their priorities are so we can dispense with any pretense of commitment to leftism and social or economic justice.

[Romulox]

72. Bizarre word salad. YOU own all the crap you just posted, nobody else. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

77. I don't read the salads either

I just go directly to replies.

[BainsBane]

109. We all own what we post

and I have no problem standing behind my support for racial justice. That is what leftism and commitment to human equality is.

[MADem]

30. This is funny!

Nice to see some good friends turning out to vote!

[BainsBane]

108. Yet it was alerted on for trolling

"by a known troll," and came just one vote from being hidden.

[MADem]

114. SMH.

You'd think the people with the overwhelming majority view on this board would be a bit more ... gracious. Such anger and bitterness. It's so pointless.


Frankly, if things don't go their way, they'll be needing a good recipe for the final banquet...
http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.html

[DemocraticWing]

34. Nice to see protest popular again

We had a few years where it was apparently not OK to protest those in power, according to the people on DU. It was rude and disrespectful to do that to a leading Democrat, I heard.

[MADem]

48. There's nothing wrong with not enjoying the sight of your ox being gored. It's a reasonable reaction

in partisan politics.

What's tiresome is a thousand screeching and wailing threads about it. One or two? Fine. Making a federal case out of it for days on end, like it's the Worst Thing In The WORRRRLD and lashing out at anyone who finds amusement in your discomfiture is what is calling attention to yourselves--and perpetuating the issue. The rest of the world has moved on, re: this matter.

Here, read and learn: http://www.occupy.com/article/open-letter-bernie-sanders-supporters

[Romulox]

52. Translation: the blowback from this Dirty Tricks operation is starting to hurt Clinton. nt

[MADem]

53. No, I don't think so. But the fact that you're perpetuating a conspiracy theme isn't helping your

candidate.

Here, you need to read this, carefully: http://www.occupy.com/article/open-letter-bernie-sanders-supporters

[Agnosticsherbet]

56. Your Right to Protest (From the ACLU)

Your Right to Protest
You have a constitutionally protected right to engage in peaceful protest in “traditional public forums” such as streets, sidewalks or parks. But in some cases the government can impose restrictions on this kind of activity by requiring permits. This is constitutional as long as the permit requirements are reasonable, and treat all groups the same no matter what the focus of the rally or protest.

The government cannot impose permit restrictions or deny a permit simply because it does not like the message of a certain speaker or group.

Generally, you have the right to distribute literature, hold signs, collect petition signatures, and engage in other similar activities while on public sidewalks or in front of government buildings as long as you are not disrupting other people, forcing passerby to accept leaflets or causing traffic problems.

Under the USA Patriot Act, non-US citizens who are not permanent residents can be investigated solely because of their First Amendment activities. Immigrants who choose to engage in a protest, march, or a demonstration should carry with them the telephone numbers of friends and relatives, as well as the telephone numbers of an immigration attorney or an immigrant advocacy organization.

There is more, read it all.

Protesting is a civil right.

[William769]

61. The answer should be obvious! Or should I start researching links When pResidenrt Bush occupied the

White House?

Not voting is also an admission of guilt.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. You need two polls on DU. One for 'real activists' and another for LGBT activists.

Many, many people on DU have written endless condemnations of LGBT activists over the years, many of those same people are now intensely supportive of the very tactics they formerly condemned being used for any reason, by anyone, ever.
It's hard for me to see past that thick layer of hypocrisy. Sorry. People who despise a tactic when gay people use it then love it when others use it are bigoted people. Mounting high horses does not alter the fact of the hypocrisy nor the record of it.

[BainsBane]

70. And you have denounced the tactics when used by BLM

So it would seem you are at an impasse with those people. I myself will always support the actions of liberation and social justice over the comfort and privilege of the few.

I guess you haven't figured out that people who so easily throw black activists under the bus won't hesitate to do the same toward the rest of the subaltern.

[Warren Stupidity]

85. See also code pink.

Endlessly denounced here.

[QC]

86. And Occupy.

No freeper ever loathed them more than our Sensible Pragmatic Centrists™ here did.

Remember all the cracks about how they needed to clean themselves up and get real jobs? Richard Nixon himself would have felt all warm and funny inside.

Of course. Code Pink and Occupy were attacking the Right. That's the big issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Shit stirring do over

[frylock]

91. It's certainly not OK to protest in Obama's house

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141126610
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026896932

[orpupilofnature57]

101. Look at at His history no matter who you are, except the 1% and those who carry their water .

[SwampG8r]

104. So no one but hrc supporters voted for the

Bernie is never wrong option?
I bet they were waiting for someone to vote it and the wait was too long.
How long til one of them links to it to show someone on du said that?
I say 2 weeks

[Juicy_Bellows]

106. Perhaps revision 3 will do the trick.

Cheers!

[BainsBane]

107. I see one Clinton supporter who responded as you say. One

But of course like everything else in life it's all a Clintonian trap to ensnare "progressives."

[Number23]

112. This thread is hilarious. The votes (bravenak!), the constant attempts by some to KEEP TRYING

to change the subject to sock puppets, the man in the moon or ANY thing under the freaking sun but #BLM is precious.

I mean some of these folks only show up in threads for the sole purpose of trying to change the subject. They've been doing it for weeks now. It's not working. And the list of progressives calling out these people for calling #BLM "subhuman" and "Koch funded right wingers" grows by the day.

So the automatic response is to circle the wagons, pretend that nothing's happening and for GOD'S SAKE change the subject!!! I am crying.

[SidDithers]

113. DU rec for pissing off the right people...nt

Sid

[Jamaal510]

115. Tase 'em, bro!

[BainsBane]

116. What says progressive criminal justice reform better than

"tase 'em"?