I am making an OP out of a reply I posted on

[tblue37]

this GD thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5434063

The clearly unconstitutional requirement that protesters and journalists keep moving, never stopping to rest, pray, conduct interviews, or take pictures, makes it difficult and downright dangerous for older people and/or those with disabilities to exercise their right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances--or for journalists to exercise their constitutionally protected function.

I am 64, overweight, and not in great health. I use a cane and have high blood pressure and heart problems. If I lived nearby, I would absolutely want to join the protests, but I cannot stand or walk for long periods. I would need to have a portable seat of some sort and to take breaks from standing and walking--but that sort of brief pause has gotten protesters arrested in Ferguson, as has participating in brief group prayer circles. Journalists and protesters have also been arrested when they pause for a picture or a short interview.

For someone like me--or like the brave, decent man featured in the thread linked above--being forced to continue marching for hours, with no opportunity to rest, especially in the horrendous, humid heat of a Missouri summer, is brutal and potentially lethal. I kept thinking of the death marches forced on prisoners by both the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII!

Oh, sure, that man could always just go home, and if I were there, so could I. But to make it virtually impossible to engage in peaceful protest except for very limited time (and in a manner so convenient for the repressive authorities one wishes to protest against!) is to defang protest altogether and to preemptively deny many people any right at all to participate.

The ACLU has briefly mentioned this aspect of the violation of protesters' (and journalists') rights, but their emphasis has been mostly on the assault on press freedom, not on the fact that this "keep moving" rule is so obviously and brutally unconstitutional.

Even worse, some idiot of a federal judge refused to strike down that disgusting rule. At least the ACLU did say in its press release that this rule denied the First Amendment rights of older people, sick people, and people with disabilities. I hope there is a big lawsuit that focuses specifically on this aspect of the authoritarian suppression of the protesters' and journalists' rights, so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle.

[daleanime]

1. K&R....

[stage left]

2. K&R

Great Op!

[tblue37]

8. Thanks. I have been stewing about this ever since the

Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 04:14 AM - Edit history (1)

authorities (i.e., the authoritarians!) first instituted that obscene rule.

Because of my heart problems, I have long realized that if I ever participate in a protest I could end up getting Tased. Age and gender no longer protect citizens from such abuses, nor does evident innocence. Therefore, I know that if I ever dare to exercise my First Amendment rights, I could easily be subject to being killed by a Taser-happy cop.

If this "keep moving" rule is allowed to stand, that will make it even easier for a cop to attack people like me if we try to protest. Since people like me have to stop moving--and must do so not just once, but frequently, and not for just a few seconds, but often for several minutes at a time--we would make convenient targets for sadistic cops.

The fact is, a lot of support for civil rights protests still comes from Baby Boomers like me who have been struggling against authoritarian abuses all our lives. A lot of support also comes from even older people, like the 90-year-old Holocaust survivor who was arrested during the protest a few days ago. This "keep moving" rule would exclude a lot of us from the protests.

Such exclusion would damage the effectiveness of the protests in other ways, as well. One of the things the authorities want to do is to paint the protesters as a bunch of hooligans and low-lifes or spoiled brats. They also want to make it seem that this particular protest is just by and for black people. Doing that encourages racists to either ignore the justice of the cause or to actively attack the humanity of the protesters.

The presence of older people, especially middle-class white people--not only demonstrates that we stand in solidarity with these protesters (and with other protesters we might join in the future), but it also creates optics that are PR disasters for the authorities. It made them look really bad when they handcuffed the 90-year-old Holocaust survivor. They must have realized that at least to some degree, because they tried to mitigate the damaging optics by having two female cops arrest her, and to do so while dressed in ordinary uniforms rather than in SWAT gear.

I have been heartened to see so many not only white people, but elderly white people from obviously middle-class backgrounds, joining the Ferguson protests. We do need to make our support for them visible. Furthermore, middle-class white people typically have access to more vehicles for seeking redress when their rights are violated or when they are brutalized by out-of-control cops. When the cops abuse or unjustly arrest an innocent black protester, that person is not likely to get any justice after the fact. But when the cops do the same kinds of things to middle-class white protesters, the media will call attention to the abuses, and the victims will have at least some chance of succeeding when they sue the police departments and the political leaders of the cities and states for their misconduct.

[stage left]

48. You're more than welcome.

You brought up points I'd never thought about. It's my opinion that no one, young or old, black or white, should be arrested for the peaceful exercise of their right to gather and protest. No one. But of course, neither should a person be shot dead and left in the middle of the street like a dog for jaywalking. Originally I thought Michael Brown was walking down the middle of a busy street, getting in the way of traffic or something(not as if that would have warranted being shot). But no. He was walking on a un-busy suburban neighborhood street. I've walked in the middle of streets in my neighborhood many times and crossed wherever I damned well pleased. Michael should have had that same right.

[Cleita]

3. I think that is an egregious violation of civil liberties.

Protestors are not cattle to be kept moving.

[tblue37]

9. The first night that rule was in effect, one young man shouted,

"I am out here to protest, not for exercise!"

I thought that was a brilliant retort.

[bigtree]

4. right on, tblue37!

. . . we know what that's all about, anyway. It's more repressive police tactics to intimidate and discourage demonstrators.

I'm with you. Let's encourage observers to press this point in a lawsuit . . .

let's start with petitioning or appealing to observers already engaged in the protests:

National Lawyers Guild
132 Nassau Street, Rm. 922
New York, NY 10038
Ph. [phone]
Fax [phone]

Kansas City, MO
Representative
Peter Hoffman and Robin Martinez
[e-mail]


also:

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri
St. Louis Office
454 Whittier Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63108
Intake Line: [phone]
Administrative Lines: [phone] in St. Louis
General E-mail: [e-mail]

[tblue37]

11. bigtree, I must tell you--you are my new hero on DU. I have several, and I have always

enjoyed reading your posts, but the incredible work you have been doing with your photo essays these past few days has taken my breath away. Nowadays, the first thing I do when I get onto DU is to check to see if you have put up another one. (You might have noticed that I am usually one of the first to K&R your posts. That is because I am always watching for them, so I frequently spot them almost as soon as you get them up.)

I was really happy when you posted your own "Hands up Friday" picture at the end of that thread. Having a face to attach to all those terrific posts makes it seem almost as though I actually know you.

Thanks again for all your wonderful photo essays. You deserve some sort of special DU award for them.

[ReRe]

17. Me too! ^^^^^^^

[bigtree]

23. gonna sound corny and stilted

. . .yours and others' attention and commitment to these issues is reward enough, let me assure you with all the sincerity I can muster.

Thank you so much for the support and appreciation . . .it's really nothing without each and everyone who finds room and time to care and get involved. -Ron

Hands Up Friday

ron fullwood @ronfullwood (bigtree) · 2h
#HandsUpFriday sad, profound sign of a new generation - thrust upon us http://twitpic.com/ealovh

[littlemissmartypants]

21. Have you posted this in any place

Under Activists ? Please do!

[tblue37]

25. I posted a link under the civil liberties heading in the Activists

group. Do you think that is the appropriate heading to use?

[littlemissmartypants]

29. Sure. The more exposure it gets the better. Thanks! eom

[Dustlawyer]

30. I say, if you are physically unable to walk, but otherwise

healthy enough to sit outside, protest, and can get video of yourself getting arrested for not moving, then call the ACLU for representation.

[tblue37]

12. Nor do Teabaggers when they protest. nt

[Dragonfli]

37. I would like to see that, I mean, the thought of each protester having to drag around a half dozen

porta-potties while they keep moving would be hilarious (or is the ratio of potties to protesters larger at RW protests?)

[littlemissmartypants]

20. Agreed. nt

[Rose Siding]

42. Nor do the "sidewalk counselors" at women's health clinics

Not much equality going on in that whole Bill of Rights thingy.

[DhhD]

46. The wives of Ferguson PD did not have to move! They were loud too with no objections.

[sadoldgirl]

6. On another op I posted something like this:

When I was joining our OWS group, the police broke up the gathering. 2 days later I read in the paper that in 1984 or1986 the SCOTUS had come down with a decision about the First Amendment rights giving local authorities the right to declare when, how, and where the citizens were allowed to protest. This was supposedly the delayed reaction to the Anti- Vietnam war gatherings.

I have never been able to find that case nor the decision, but wished someone else could enlighten us.

I don't agree with the SCOTUS on this, but it seemed it made this the law.Thus, I don't know whether a new lawsuit by the ACLU would help, especially with the present court.

[tblue37]

13. Damn. I sure hope that is not the case--but I fear it might well be.

TPTB have been working long and hard to get us under control.

[tblue37]

16. BTW, maybe a lawsuit based on the fact that the rule

Last edited Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)

would make it physically impossible for some citizens to assemble or protest at all could help to undercut that SC ruling.

[NYC_SKP]

7. I agree and hope a civil rights suit occurs. NT

[Cha]

10. Excellent OP, tblue

[littlemissmartypants]

19. It really is Cha! nt

[tblue37]

22. Thank you both! nt

[Brainstormy]

14. This was bothering me, too

Big time. I questioned it here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025411312

Your age, weight, physical condition is BESIDE the POINT. This is clearly unconstitutional. What next? You can protest only if you speak English? Carry a passport? I'd be happy to sign a petition or support a lawsuit. Look to the ACLU on this. I hope.

[tblue37]

15. In one way it is beside the point, of course, but in another it is not.

The fact that it is physically impossible for some people to obey that rule. and potentially dangerous, even lethal, for others to even try means that instituting such a rule actively excludes such people from exercising their rights.

[littlemissmartypants]

18. Thanks for your post, tblue37.

When I march in Raleigh I usually fall way behind the group, I'm slow. But this makes me vulnerable.

Thankfully, we work closely with law enforcement in the exercising of our civil disobedience.

That may not always be the case as our conditions exacerbate and the extremists become more threatened.

Especially when I see how readily they will act out their fear of losing their grip and the power and control they have so successfully amassed against us.

Love, Peace and the Righteous Fight.
~ Lmsp 🙌

[ReRe]

24. K&R

I am sick to death of police in riot gear at protests. They are the ones who incite violence, not the peaceful protesters. It's gone way over the line. This is an example of giving them a little and they take a mile. When they get away with one form of violence against the people, they add a new tactic. And here we are. Full born effing war upon We the People on the streets of America!

What the police should have done was guard the businesses instead of harassing the protesters.

The Police were responsible for everything. NOT THE PEOPLE OF FERGUSON!

[hopemountain]

26. they treated the protestors as though they were cattle.

disgusting. prodding them along. disrespectful and dehumanizing.

[WillyT]

27. K & R !!!

[ancianita]

28. Yeah. This is the fucking oppression of privileging ORDER over the constitutional rights of assembly

of ANY kind. I'm totally in support of fighting this shit. This is how force orders humans around so much that it appears that they're the "animals" that the 'enforcers' try to dehumanize them into looking like.

They -- not their 'law and order' victims -- are beneath contempt. ORDER is the face of fascism.

[New Orleans Strong]

31. Why the solution is such a snap!

Just - if you can, of course - keep a Bureau of Land Management agent "in your sights" and, why, boom! Just relax! Done.

[tblue37]

36. Yep--you can even *lie down*! nt

[CaptainTruth]

32. I had to call BS on this ...

... in a FB post when it first happened. Part of what I said was "screw you if you're elderly, handicapped, have a broken leg, or any other mobility issue that prevents you from being able to walk all day. You no longer have full First Amendment rights."

To me this looked like a case of egotistical opressive cops making the protesters "prance & jump through hoops like good little doggies" merely because they COULD. It was just to display that they still had control over the people, like they were on a leash & they had to walk like the cops wanted them to walk ... or else.

Sick. Fucking sick.

I kept thinking ... Einstein proved motion is relative ... object A moving past object B is the same as object B moving past object A. So, if the cops get some perverted sexual gratification (or whatever) out of watching random people go by ... they should let the protesters stand still & the damn cops can walk in a circle!

Soapbox off ...

[uponit7771]

40. +1

[woo me with science]

33. Outstanding OP. The Constitutionally protected right to protest

says NOTHING about a need to keep moving or be bullied, attacked, or arrested by thug militarized police.

This should go to the Greatest Page.

[questionseverything]

43. agreed

also the unconstitutional "press pens" need to be fought

[rhett o rick]

34. k&r. Thanks for posting. nm

[rickyhall]

35. I guess we're supposed to "get over" the loss of our democracy

And accept the corrupt rule of the rich in this new plutocracy.

[whereisjustice]

41. exactly, we are told to accept the "reality based" world of oppression, torture, corruption and

vote without making any demands of the leaders who profit from us.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

38. k and r. emphatically. n/t

[Enthusiast]

39. Kicked and recommended!

Thank you, tblue37. I share some of your health issues. I understand completely.

The police sort of make the rules as they go along. They really do not care about the constitution.

[tblue37]

49. Not only do they not care about the Constitution, but most of them

have virtually no knowledge of it.

The unfortunate reality is that most Americans don't know anything about the Constitution, and those who become cops, especially in areas like St. Louis County and Ferguson, Missouri, are not necessarily the most educated of people.

They also receive very little (if any) training about the constitutional rights of the citizens they will be policing, and besides, the cop culture generally is more concerned with power and control than with citizens' rights.

They don't really know what our rights are, and even if they did, they wouldn't care.

That is why they must be subjected to rigorous civilian oversight, and why they must be held accountable for abusing their authority.

But such oversight and accountability do not appear out of nowhere. They exist only where citizens' fight for them and remain ever vigilant to maintain them.

Michael Bell, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, spearheaded a drive for such a civilian review board in Wisconsin, after the police murdered his 21-year-old son. We need to fight for such review boards everywhere.

Here is Bell's story:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/what-i-did-after-police-killed-my-son-110038.html

What I Did After Police Killed My Son: Ten years later, we in Wisconsin passed the nation’s first law calling for outside reviews.

[Enthusiast]

50. I'll read that article on Bell. I like this—rigorous civilian oversight.

[Enthusiast]

53. That's an incredible story, tblue37.

Terrible!

I hope we can eventually get review boards for every state.

[indepat]

44. What do we get when the right wing controls the levers of power: suppression of liberty for starters

[cantbeserious]

45. As An Aging American - I Do To

eom

[cui bono]

47. You either have to keep moving or they corral you into your own special area far from

what you are protesting.

[rock]

51. Can't one instead of holding a protest

turn it into a speech? The crowd could assemble (would probably need a permit) and not have to move. The speaker could then read out of the dictionary while the crowd shouted slogans and suc.

[tblue37]

52. I doubt that would work, because those cops have a purpose, and that purpose does not

include allowing the protesters to move (or stand) freely without being harassed or assaulted.

The cops are there to show "those people" who's in charge and to teach them a lesson if they dare to question their"authoritah."

After all, they arrested people who merely stopped for a moment to pray, so why wouldn't they arrest someone who stood in one place to give a speech, whether it happened to be a real speech or a reading of the dictionary.