This is gonna start some S#$t

[Hellion]

:devil I guess they are going to allow a Hate march in Lansing this Saturday.All this does is create more problems,and more hostility in society.These people that preach hate need to f#$king grow up.There is enough problems elsewhere going on,we don't need this crap to add to it.

[Guest Megalicious]

As much as I disagree with what they are saying, they have just as much a right as you or I do to voice their views.

It's call freedom of speech.

Just as Im sure they would hate it if I held a rally to say what stupid, ignorant asses they all were.

as far as Im conserned they are just attention whores. If I pay attention to them and listen to their bullshit .. Im just giving in.

[The_Dark]

Hate march? What group? And what do you mean by "allow"... last I checked everyone had a right to do it.

[Msterbeau]

Yup. Freedom of speech. Let them do their thing. You have the right to counter-protest if you don't like their messege.

[Blackmail]

I think all protests or marches should be outlawed. All it does is cost tax payers money with cleanup and extra police hours. Did all those anti-war protestors stop the Iraq war? No. Did they cost money and look annoying on TV? Yes.

I don't care what the message is or reason why they are marching, it does nothing but cost money.

[Der Nister]

Yup anyone can stand up in public and say what they think no matter how much others disagree with them. Or how ignorant it makes them look.

That's why they wear white hoods - to hide their identities. Cowards in my book.

[FarrIL]

That's why they wear white hoods - to hide their identities. Cowards in my book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

::: Snickers ::: Amen to that one.

I believe that they have just a right to say their shpeel as much as we do. However, these racist pricks, if that's what they're rallying for, arent going to be heard most likely.

These people arent promoting tolerance, therefore, who should care?

It's when things get violent that police get more work and shit costs more money.....

[torn asunder]

something that applies IRL, as well as online...

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!

what do you think they would do if *nobody at all* showed up to listen - not even the media!? bet they'd feel kinda stoopid, ya know!?

[The_Dark]

OK, I went and did a search to see what "hate" group your talking about. This is actually not any specific group, though it is sponsered by the National Socialist Party (Neo_nazi)

Now, I disagree with a great many of the things they stand for but I do support a few things that some of these groups are against. Reverse Discrimination being one of them. Would I go to thier rally, Hell NO, do i support thier right to do it? To the Death.

[Guest Megalicious]

something that applies IRL, as well as online...

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!

what do you think they would do if *nobody at all* showed up to listen - not even the media!? bet they'd feel kinda stoopid, ya know!? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

Would I go to thier rally, Hell NO, do i support thier right to do it? To the Death.

Very well put Mr Dark.

[Blackmail]

You should be able to have any opinion you want and be entitled to free speech, but why should you have the right to cost tax payers money? I don't think banning protests would infringe on anyones right to free speech. You just don't need to do it on public streets and expect extra police presence to help stem violence from the opposition.

[torn asunder]

You should be able to have any opinion you want and be entitled to free speech, but why should you have the right to cost tax payers money?  I don't think banning protests would infringe on anyones right to free speech.  You just don't need to do it on public streets and expect extra police presence to help stem violence from the opposition.

seems to me that ensuring the safety of all of its citizens is the responsibility of any town/city/locale/etc. people are entitled to free speech, and (how do they phrase it?) to peacefully congregate (or something like that) even if your opinion is unpopular, you have the right to voice it without concern for your own wellbeing, and if it takes the local govt. stepping up their police protection to ensure that, i think it's that govt's responsibility to do so.

[Blackmail]

seems to me that ensuring the safety of all of its citizens is the responsibility of any town/city/locale/etc. people are entitled to free speech, and (how do they phrase it?) to peacefully congregate (or something like that) even if your opinion is unpopular, you have the right to voice it without concern for your own wellbeing, and if it takes the local govt. stepping up their police protection to ensure that, i think it's that govt's responsibility to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok let me see if I got this right, you think people should be able to make public, hateful remarks and the government should be responsible for protecting the people instigating the (assumed) violent reaction, and then we the taxpayers should foot the bill for the protection of the hate mongers?

Makes sense to me.

[torn asunder]

Ok let me see if I got this right, you think people should be able to make public, hateful remarks and the government should be responsible for protecting the people instigating the (assumed) violent reaction, and then we the taxpayers should foot the bill for the protection of the hate mongers?

Makes sense to me.

well, let me see if i got *this* right... you would deny freedom of speech to certain individuals/groups, baased on (*insert deciding body here*) opinion of their rhetoric? so, that would mean you're for freedom of speech for only *certain, approved entities*!?!? :blink

[Msterbeau]

I think all protests or marches should be outlawed.  All it does is cost tax payers money with cleanup and extra police hours.  Did all those anti-war protestors stop the Iraq war?  No.  Did they cost money and look annoying on TV?  Yes.

I don't care what the message is or reason why they are marching, it does nothing but cost money.

Fine. Here's your $1.37 back. Now shuddup.

[torn asunder]

...i'm sorry, but...

Fine.  Here's your $1.37 back.  Now shuddup.

:laughing :laughing :laughing :whistling :fear

[Msterbeau]

You should be able to have any opinion you want and be entitled to free speech, but why should you have the right to cost tax payers money?  I don't think banning protests would infringe on anyones right to free speech.  You just don't need to do it on public streets and expect extra police presence to help stem violence from the opposition.

I'd vote for cleaning up your mess if money is the problem....

[Blackmail]

well, let me see if i got *this* right... you would deny freedom of speech to certain individuals/groups, baased on (*insert deciding body here*) opinion of their rhetoric?  so, that would mean you're for freedom of speech for only *certain, approved entities*!?!?  :blink

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess you're not going to answer my question. But I'll answer yours.

do you understand the concept of freedom of speech? Where did I say anyone didn't have a right to say what they wanted? Perhaps you meant I am trying to deny freedom of assembly, which is different than freedom of speech.

What I am opposed to, and if you actually read my post, is demonstrations. And, people are denied the "right" to protest all the time. You have to get a permit to protest and they are often denied for one reason or another.

[Blackmail]

I'd vote for cleaning up your mess if money is the problem....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The metro times, a liberal weekly, condemned an anti-war rally in Ann Arbor even though they were opposed to the war themselves, because it cost the city of Ann Arbor something like $70,000.

So for those of you who take issue with me being opposed to protests, I hope you also don't complain when a teacher or a firefighter loses a job in a cash strapped city.

Put it this way, if the KKK or the Iraq-war protestors wanted to protest in Hamtramck - the city would have two choices: let a riot happen or go bankrupt trying to prevent a riot. And what point does the protest serve?

[torn asunder]

I guess you're not going to answer my question.  But I'll answer yours. 

do you understand the concept of freedom of speech?  Where did I say anyone didn't have a right to say what they wanted?  Perhaps you meant I am trying to deny freedom of assembly, which is different than freedom of speech. 

What I am opposed to, and if you actually read my post, is demonstrations.  And, people are denied the "right" to protest all the time.  You have to get a permit to protest and they are often denied for one reason or another.

and if you actually read my post, you'll see i did, in fact, mention peaceful assembly. (although i couldn't think of the proper terminology at the time) sure, people are denied sometimes, but the fact is, in this *particular* case, this group has been allowed to do so - so yes, i feel that it's entirely the local govts. responsibility to enable them to hold their demonstration without fear of physical harm or retribution.

so, do you feel the sit-ins & marches & protests of the 60's, etc., were wrong, and should not have been allowed? do you think the world would be a better place now, if they'd never happened?

[torn asunder]

Ok let me see if I got this right, you think people should be able to make public, hateful remarks and the government should be responsible for protecting the people instigating the (assumed) violent reaction, and then we the taxpayers should foot the bill for the protection of the hate mongers?

Makes sense to me.

and, to answer your question as succinctly as possible...

yes.

[Msterbeau]

The metro times, a liberal weekly, condemned an anti-war rally in Ann Arbor even though they were opposed to the war themselves, because it cost the city of Ann Arbor something like $70,000.

So for those of you who take issue with me being opposed to protests, I hope you also don't complain when a teacher or a firefighter loses a job in a cash strapped city.

Put it this way, if the KKK or the Iraq-war protestors wanted to protest in Hamtramck - the city would have two choices:  let a riot happen or go bankrupt trying to prevent a riot.  And what point does the protest serve?

And that has what to do with the protestors cleaning their own mess?

[Blackmail]

This is exactly the kind of shit you tried to pull before Torn Asunder, you made this post in response to my post

"well, let me see if i got *this* right... you would deny freedom of speech to certain individuals/groups, baased on (*insert deciding body here*) opinion of their rhetoric? so, that would mean you're for freedom of speech for only *certain, approved entities*!?!? "

Which did not mention freedom of assembly whatsoever. You asked if I was trying to deny freedom of speech. You mention demonstrations in a completely unrelated post, so insinuating that I didn't read your post is completelt asanine.

As for the protests and sit ins of the 60's, I can't comment, I wasn't around then. They certainly didn't stop the vietnam war. But that is no reason to support protests anyway......using that logic I would say that black people should be allowed to march with loaded guns in Sacramento because the Black Panthers did in the 60's and they helped cause change.

This is a relevant article saying this particular protest will cost a city $500,000

Now that money could be used to pay teachers, policemen, firefighters, etc but instead it will go to people who want to walk around and yell.

http://www.bonitanews.com/news/2006/apr/13...pro/?local_news

Immigration march costed the city of Dallas $400,000

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/1433...annel=dfw_state

Shall I go on?

[Blackmail]

Doing a little more reading.......the WTO protests in Seattle from a few years ago costs the city 3.8 million dollars. A recent protest in London, England cost them 10 million pounds.

Given that info, would you still support a large scale protest in Detroit on some sort of psuedo-noble "freedom of speech/assembly" grounds even though it would pretty much bankrupt the city and put city employees out of work?

[AstralCrux]

Hey, why not when they file to be able to have a public demostration the city/county can just send them a bill for any additional police/ambulatory/clean-up services they may need? In fact let's make them pay for it up front. Seeing as how that seems to be the major issue of debate- this seems like the most logical solution because no freedoms will be taken away.