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.

Garden hoses on protesters work as a last resort.

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.

But See McCullen v. Coakley

Probably not constitutional

May I just comment that I am so glad that the pro-Gaza protesters who mucked up Van Ness Street across from the Israeli embassy for months earlier this year are gone.

Thank you to whomever gave them the boot.

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.

I can see why you think that. You’re not totally wrong but there are many of us who thought that protests went overboard in all of those examples.

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).

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

That's different (TM)!

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

<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.

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.

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.

There are a lot of appropriate time and place restrictions on speech and always have been, like permitting, etc.. You can still protest, but not whenever and wherever and however you want - restrictions receive heightened scrutiny, but they are not flat out prohibited when there are countervailing rights at stake.

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.

Good. Hope this passes

If you aren't one of the lucky ones who happens to live by a random low level person at State or an Embassy or you don't even know where, you may not have caught this. Please reach out to your council member about the importance of this bill being passed. They can still protest but the bullhorns and sirens, which start at 7 am (and can go until 10 pm) in a completely residential neighborhood is out of control. They can still protest but this would limit the sound amplification, numbers and throwing projectiles. There are currently children in targeted home and surrounding homes who are scare to leave their houses due to what has been happening. Yes MPD has been involved but are doing as much as they can under current law.


COUNCILMEMBER PINTO ANNOUNCES EMERGENCY BILL

TO ADDRESS TARGETED DEMONSTRATIONS AT RESIDENCES



Washington, DC – Today, Councilmember Brooke Pinto announced the introduction of the Residential Tranquility Emergency Amendment Act to address ongoing concerns of demonstrations targeting individual residences with excessive sound and the throwing of projectiles as intimidation tactics.



“We must protect the fundamental right to protest and express one’s views; a value we carry forward proudly in the District of Columbia and in our country. We also must ensure the reasonable expectations of residents that their homes be protected from significant excessively loud disruptions and threatening actions when they are in their homes; impacts that can be felt by entire communities,” said Councilmember Brooke Pinto. “I believe we can and must get this balance right.”



The Residential Tranquility Emergency Amendment Act would prohibit persons targeting a residence for purposes of a demonstration from using amplified sound devices in a residential zone and amend the hours during which demonstrations of three or more persons targeting a residence can occur to daytime hours. In addition, the bill would prohibit a person from launching or throwing a projectile onto the residential property of another with the intent to cause fear, to intimidate, to retaliate, or to protest or disparage the conduct, belief, opinions, action, membership affiliation, religion, race, ethnicity, political party membership, speech, or writings of a person living or working at that residence.



“The persistent use of amplified sound devices in residentially zoned areas poses significant health risks to residents and threatens the peace and tranquility that residents should rightfully expect in their homes. The changes proposed in the Residential Tranquility Emergency Amendment Act represent an urgent and necessary approach to safeguarding the well-being of District residents and addressing challenges to residential peace and security while respecting people’s First Amendment rights,” said Councilmember Brooke Pinto.



The bill is expected to be voted on by the Council at an Additional Legislative Meeting on Tuesday, October 29th.