DC Targeted Demonstrations at Residences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:<Trump elected>
“Take to the streets!”

<BLM>
“Take to the streets”

<Roe overturned>
“Bring the protests to where they live!”

<stop genocide>
“Not like that! Lock them up!”

Such hypocrites.

+1. No one cared when they were at the homes of Trump admin officials

+2, it was just fine, then. It’s only a problem now.

Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:<Trump elected>
“Take to the streets!”

<BLM>
“Take to the streets”

<Roe overturned>
“Bring the protests to where they live!”

<stop genocide>
“Not like that! Lock them up!”

Such hypocrites.

The last isn’t a vanity issue for bougie UMC white careerists. They only like social justice when it looks good on their Linkein profiles and it won’t affect them professionally. If the bosses were firing people for protesting George Floyd these same people would be flying Blue Lives Matter flags outside their gentrified townhomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do think protests should continue outside the home of the Israeli ambassador, who -- unlike random journalists -- really is directly responsible for decisions about the war.

the israeli ambassador is not part of the israeli war cabinet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Protests outside journalists’ homes smack of intimidation of the free press.

The news outlets all have DC HQs. Protest there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think protests should continue outside the home of the Israeli ambassador, who -- unlike random journalists -- really is directly responsible for decisions about the war.

the israeli ambassador is not part of the israeli war cabinet.

Uhm what???? I'm not sure you know how all of this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Think about it this way: protesting outside someone's home and throwing rocks is meant to intimidate and harass, not air a grievance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably not constitutional

Very much constitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Think about it this way: protesting outside someone's home and throwing rocks is meant to intimidate and harass, not air a grievance.

Throwing rocks?

Cite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think protests should continue outside the home of the Israeli ambassador, who -- unlike random journalists -- really is directly responsible for decisions about the war.

the israeli ambassador is not part of the israeli war cabinet.

Not strictly speaking, no, but I think he's probably got more influence on what's happening in the war than 95 percent of MKs do. He seems like a relatively reasonable guy, and I guess it's better that he's there than a raving Likudnik, but I still think the protests outside his house, mostly organized by Israeli expats, are important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Protests outside journalists’ homes smack of intimidation of the free press.

What?!?! Says who?


So protesting outside Brett Cavanaugh’s house is fine but protesting outside Eugene Robinson’s or Jennifer Rubin’s house is “intimidation”?

What a bunch of bullsh!t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Protests outside journalists’ homes smack of intimidation of the free press.

What?!?! Says who?


So protesting outside Brett Cavanaugh’s house is fine but protesting outside Eugene Robinson’s or Jennifer Rubin’s house is “intimidation”?

What a bunch of bullsh!t.

DP. I don't really support protesting outside of Brett Kavanaugh's house, either, but there IS a difference between protesting people who are in or nominated to be in actual positions of power and protesting people who just report or comment on the news. What is Jennifer Rubin supposed to do about the Supreme Court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Protests outside journalists’ homes smack of intimidation of the free press.

What?!?! Says who?


So protesting outside Brett Cavanaugh’s house is fine but protesting outside Eugene Robinson’s or Jennifer Rubin’s house is “intimidation”?

What a bunch of bullsh!t.

DP. I don't really support protesting outside of Brett Kavanaugh's house, either, but there IS a difference between protesting people who are in or nominated to be in actual positions of power and protesting people who just report or comment on the news. What is Jennifer Rubin supposed to do about the Supreme Court?

Jennifer Rubin is responsible for the content she writes. She is a fair and legitimate target of protest. She chose to be a journalist, she needs to accept accountability for her work. All journalists do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:<Trump elected>
“Take to the streets!”

<BLM>
“Take to the streets”

<Roe overturned>
“Bring the protests to where they live!”

<stop genocide>
“Not like that! Lock them up!”

Such hypocrites.

+1. No one cared when they were at the homes of Trump admin officials

+2, it was just fine, then. It’s only a problem now.

Pathetic.

Oh, you’re wrong! I very much disagreed with previous protests at houses. Kavanaugh, Vance, all of it. I’m not sure we can solve the problem with legal prohibitions because of the Constitution,
but I absolutely did and do disapprove of them no matter the politics. I don’t think it’s ever appropriate or even effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Think about it this way: protesting outside someone's home and throwing rocks is meant to intimidate and harass, not air a grievance.

Throwing rocks?

Cite?

The law included stopping people from throwing projectiles. Which means, people were throwing things and this law addressed it.

[Anonymous]

Ban the protesters yelling at diners eating outdoors as well.