[HN Gopher] Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K....
___________________________________________________________________
Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My
King' tag grows
Author : rntn
Score : 128 points
Date : 2022-09-12 21:16 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (text.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (text.npr.org)
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Well, I guess this is progress.
|
| In the past, anti-royal protestors used to be hung, drawn, and
| quartered.
| HereIGoAgain wrote:
| That's looking on the bright side! A glass half full type of
| person i'm guessing. lol
| user764743 wrote:
| > The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be
| "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact
| on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.
|
| Doesn't take a political science degree to see what's wrong with
| this law. When cops get to decide what is a justifiably loud
| protest and what isn't you no longer have the right to protest.
| Protests are meant to disrupt, if you can't be loud about it then
| it no longer has its intended effect.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Protests are not meant to disrupt.
|
| They are meant to convince your fellow citizens of your
| position.
|
| Being a disruptive $#@t, not only defeats that purpose, it
| actually causes more people to vote against you.
|
| Moreover, emotionally driven teenagers (or stunted "adults")
| use these protests as a pubescent venting mechanism to smash
| business and mistreat adults they encounter, like some
| narcissistic violent therapy session.
|
| It should absolutely be illegal.
| ipaddr wrote:
| That's literally what the word means.
| [deleted]
| patmcc wrote:
| You should look up the history of protests. They _absolutely_
| are meant to disrupt.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Looting is illegal
| whateveracct wrote:
| This thread shows that many commenters of HN can understand free
| speech incorrectly from both ends simultaneously.
|
| When it comes to government-sponsored situations, free speech is
| very broad in the United States.
|
| The OP is a good example to point to when people act like the US
| isn't special for its Constitution.
| dijit wrote:
| They aren't being arrested for being anti-monarchy though.
|
| They are being arrested for being rude about it.
|
| Was the fella on radio 4 who stated to the entire nation that
| 'King Charles and his family should be put in a council house and
| that the Monarchy should be abolished' arrested? No.
|
| If you are going to attend a funeral, any funeral, be it the
| Queen's or anyone else's and hurl abuse or hold up signs with
| obscenities, you will be arrested.
|
| There were arrests in which the arrestee has been unarrested,
| when the police made a mistake. Like the fella who stated that
| 'we didn't vote for him' when King Charles was pronounced King.
|
| You can, quite legally, protest the Monarchy. Being a dick about
| it and trying to upset people mourning will however be considered
| a breach of the peace or some other public order offence.
| jj90 wrote:
| closewith wrote:
| > They aren't being arrested for being anti-monarchy though.
|
| > They are being arrested for being rude about it.
|
| Got it. Arrested for poor taste.
|
| Hard to see the justification for that in a democracy?
| dijit wrote:
| You will be arrested for hurling obscenities at mourners
| regardless of who the dead person is.
|
| People were arrested at Margaret Thatchers funeral for the
| same thing.
|
| It's not rocket science. You're not allowed to do that.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Once again, Americans are proud of the fact they can
| protest at funerals.
| defen wrote:
| The alternative is that you can be arrested for saying
| something mean at a funeral. I prefer the American
| system.
| munk-a wrote:
| I don't - my father's funeral is literally two weeks
| away. Some relatives that my mother doesn't get along
| with at all aren't invited - they've never been
| particularly close and it'll be healthier for everyone if
| they don't stir shit in a time of healing.
|
| This isn't a case of protestors being repeatedly ignored
| - the public discussion about the monarchy is unfolding
| in most media outlets right now and other forms of
| protest are still quite available.
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| In Oxford someone was arrested for shouting " _who elected
| him_ " during the proclamation of the new king so it's not
| just about respecting a funeral (which is understable) or
| unacceptable language.
|
| But in fairness to the police there seems to be a mass
| fervour at the moment and they may actually be doing the
| hecklers a service by taking them away for their own
| safety...
| krona wrote:
| This is the point. 'Fear or provocation of violence' is
| an offence since it precipitates violence, its a
| provocation that 'might cause a reasonable individual to
| lose self control', which would be quite dreadful!
| account-5 wrote:
| And then de-arrested.
| ISL wrote:
| In the United States, with certain limits [1], one can
| picket funerals and be massively disrespectful.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#L
| aws_l...
| metacritic12 wrote:
| That section you linked shows that free-speech is indeed
| limited within a certain radius of certain funerals.
| peyton wrote:
| I suggest you read the whole section.
| mc32 wrote:
| But this is a case in the UK. They have different laws
| and observe different decorum.
|
| Even in the US I would think protesting a funeral to be
| in extremely poor taste, no matter the target. What's
| that Latin phrase about the recently dead?
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Yeah but the UK is where you can get arrested for making
| your girlfriend's pug do a Nazi salute as a joke (but
| somehow _Father Ted_ doing similar Nazi jokes gets a
| pass)
| kingsloi wrote:
| https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
| way/2011/03/02/134194791...
| mc32 wrote:
| I mean, the WBC is a well known agitator and not
| representative of people or even protestors at large. In
| any case, I contend it's in extremely poor taste and does
| not help further the cause, and actively creates
| antipathy.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| The article describes an activist who specifically took
| pains to avoid any disparagement of the outgoing Queen,
| limiting his protest to the incoming coronation.
|
| If that falls under the rule you're describing, doesn't
| that render it impossible to protest a ceremony, as long
| as it happens after a funeral? It seems you're defining
| the protest of hereditary office holding has been defined
| away as unacceptably rude?
| azalemeth wrote:
| This is a very clear distinction in the UK. There are a
| number of constraints on someone's rights to make loud
| noises in the UK, of which probably Section 5(1) of the
| 1986 Public Order Act reads "(1) A
| person is guilty of an offence if he/she: (a)
| uses threatening (or abusive) words or behaviour, or
| disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any
| writing, sign or other visible representation which is
| threatening (or abusive)"
|
| with all of the usual lawyerly finness about what (b)
| means being defined by common law precedent and the right
| to freedom of expression largely being worked out by the
| courts together with reference to the EHCR. Note that
| things like animal rights protestors making loud noises
| at university graduations (where the graduates have
| nothing to do with animal experiments) have successfully
| been challenged under this statute - the usual remedy is
| a high court injunction relocating them to somewhere
| visible and nearby, but out of earshot, of the thing they
| are protesting against.
|
| It is worth noting that a long-running tradition in the
| UK is that if a policeman disagrees with a piece of
| legislation and the opportunity arises to challenge it
| favourably in court, he arrests somebody under the
| legislation in question in what may be favourable but
| reasonable circumstances (favourable to the defendant) in
| order to circumscribe the limitations of the act in
| question. As a consequence, in many ways, I therefore
| think that this may also be a challenge by police
| officers to the validity of the conservative government's
| latest legislation that aims to ban "disruptive"
| protests, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act
| 2022, which was largely modified to deal with the (IMO
| effective) protests of the Insulate Britain campaign who
| recently brought major motorways to a crawl. It is a
| deeply divisive and very authoritarian bill, and would
| cover this situation. Specifically, it provides that:
| "[...] police forces are allowed to place restrictions on
| protests they believe would otherwise constitute an
| existing offence of public nuisance, including imposing
| starting and finishing times and noise limits, and be
| able to consider actions by one individual as protests
| under provisions of the Act. Protestors disobeying such
| instructions from the police may be committing a criminal
| offence."
|
| In my opinion, this has already been used to stifle what
| I find to be legitimate protest - "on 28 June 2022, the
| day the act came into force, anti-Brexit activist Steve
| Bray had his amplification equipment seized by police
| under the 2011 Police Reform Social Responsibility Act.
| The 2022 act extends the area around the House of Commons
| in which protest is restricted under the 2011 act." [1].
|
| As recognised by the police, positing the possibility of
| transitioning to a republic (from a constitutional
| monarchy) is almost certainly a clear-cut case of a
| legitimate piece of protest, and so if someone _did_
| protest accordingly _without_ being rude and disruptive I
| think this would be a perfect opportunity for the courts
| to throw out the charge.
|
| Edit: Further bits of fun law - "public nuisance" is both
| a tort and a _very_ old legal concept, recommended
| effectively for removal and updating from the criminal
| statutes by the Law Commission in 2015 [2]. It is
| described quite formally in many words (c.f. [2]) but
| more usefully defined by the fact that
| typically consists either of an environmental nuisance,
| such as carrying on works producing excessive
| noise or smells, or of offensive or dangerous behaviour
| in public, such as noisy parties and hanging from
| bridges. It also includes obstructing the public
| highway, though now this is also a statutory offence.
|
| Public nuisance therefore is a _much_ lower bar to
| offence than either the public order act or breach of the
| peace would be; and unlike those acts there is no
| requirement for a _mens rea_ : there is no requirement
| that the defendant intended or was reckless about whether
| his conduct caused the relevant kind of harm. This is
| quite a key point as it de facto lets the police decide
| what the line is, with no input required on the part of
| the defendant. I would be very interested to see a
| reconciliation of these rights with that of freedom to
| expression and the broader constitutional right to
| protest in the UK.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police,_Crime,_Sentenci
| ng_and_...
|
| [2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/u
| ploads/...
| bawolff wrote:
| So? the US is a weird, barely functioning, democracy. Why
| would anyone want to emulate it?
| deskamess wrote:
| What makes it weird? Why is it barely functioning?
| peyton wrote:
| Not arresting protestors is probably a good thing to
| emulate regardless of your feelings about the US.
| gambiting wrote:
| Why does everything have to be so extremist with the US?
| Everything taken to the absolute maximum imaginable?
|
| Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god
| given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public
| property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you
| shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you
| let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how
| that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly
| following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL
| costs) without any consideration as to what that does to
| your society.
| mwint wrote:
| USAian here:
|
| > Protests should be allowed
|
| They are.
|
| > destroying public property
|
| Is illegal and you can be arrested for it.
|
| > advocating violence or hate
|
| Is illegal and you can be arrested for it.
|
| You just can't be arrested for "being rude". You have to
| commit a crime.
|
| Protesting does not mean you're immune to prosecution for
| non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots
| was simply governments deciding, for one reason or
| another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
| bawolff wrote:
| as another example, US lets you bring guns to protests, i
| am 100% on board with how my government (canada) arrests
| any idiots who show up with a firearm to a protest.
|
| I generally like the right to protest, but i dont want
| 100% free for all.
| renewiltord wrote:
| This is exactly why I refuse to walk. I'm told that
| Hitler once walked.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Regardless of the legalities, it's not a behaviour anyone
| should be proud of.
|
| If shitting in the street were legal would you complain
| when people passed a law to stop your bad behaviour?
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| That's hardly something to be proud of. God, I hate
| ideology.
| LilBytes wrote:
| I was about to quote the same church. Personally I think
| the UK law got it right on this one.
| zardo wrote:
| A democracy certainly doesn't need rules to protect the
| dignity of it's royal family.
| ysleepy wrote:
| Not a royal privilege though, the commoners enjoy the right
| to an undisturbed funeral too.
| misnome wrote:
| Ah, so the entire country counts as the site of a funeral
| now?
| yellowapple wrote:
| It does if it's for a royal, I guess.
| ben_w wrote:
| In a democracy? Sure, arrests can still occur, but one needs
| to be a lot more careful than the argument OP used.
|
| However, the UK is a _kingdom_ in various important ways, and
| this was the funeral of the head of state and the head of the
| official state religion.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Screeching profanities at a funeral march should be a minor
| crime. ...but perhaps more importantly, you should just be
| ashamed of your childish behaviour.
| googlryas wrote:
| It's not being arrested for poor taste. They're being
| arrested for their actions, not their beliefs.
|
| Is there some democracy somewhere which doesn't have a public
| nuisance/breaching the peace style law?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Let's just say that the hecklers have been arrested much,
| much faster (pretty much instantly, apparently) than the
| "eco-activists" who recently blocked roads, petrol
| stations, even motorways...
| koheripbal wrote:
| I think we agree that all disruptive assholes should be
| arrested quickly.
| metacritic12 wrote:
| Is stealing someone else's wallet also in poor taste? Yes.
|
| If that thief gets arrested, is it just because it is poor
| taste? No.
|
| Same thing with hurling obscenities at a funeral.
| dqh wrote:
| Do you really think you should have the right to disrupt the
| funeral of someone you don't like?
| pharmakom wrote:
| What if the funeral is a 10 day extravaganza at tax payer
| expense whilst some families are choosing between eating
| and heating?
| gambiting wrote:
| I think we're reaching some insane point in this
| discussion when a funeral of one of the most well known
| people in the world, where leaders of literally every
| major superpower are coming over to pay their respects is
| called an extravaganza.
| dTal wrote:
| rlpb wrote:
| Since about half the country seem to want to show up, it
| seems reasonable and proportionate. I wouldn't have a
| problem with some celebrity's funeral being a huge affair
| either, even if I didn't care for that celebrity myself.
|
| In case I'm misunderstood, I don't feel strongly either
| way about the British royalty, but I'm OK with allowing a
| significant proportion of the population being left alone
| to get on with what ceremony they want to do, given that
| they want to do it.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| Yes. Absolutely. Assuming it's being held in public and,
| especially, if it's a state figure.
|
| Even more so if the public is the one paying for the
| funeral in the first place. You're definitely allowed to be
| rude at a funeral you're footing the bill for.
| lupire wrote:
| USA has the famous Phelps family, a fake religion who
| attack funerals and then sue the victims for fighting back,
| and win.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| This happens less so now that large numbers of bikers
| show up each time they try and stand directly in front of
| them, holding large flags to block their signs.
| bawolff wrote:
| So in your view, the Phelps family is morally right?
|
| If not, why did you respond with this to a question about
| is it morally right to protest at a funeral?
| babypuncher wrote:
| I think it's fair to make certain events, like funerals, off-
| limits to protest.
|
| Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything
| you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval
| Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and
| attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret
| Service.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| _> Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say
| anything you want wherever you want. I can 't just walk
| into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the
| President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot
| by the Secret Service._
|
| For trespassing. This example has nothing to do with
| speech.
| bawolff wrote:
| It has the same amount as the thing this article is
| about, which makes it a good comparison (the article also
| has nothing to do with the content of the speech)
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| You can hurl all the obscenities you like at the President.
| You might be removed from the property but you won't be
| shot.
| munk-a wrote:
| I was absolutely in favor of opposing funeral protests when
| they were happening in America[1]. Freedom to protest doesn't
| mean the freedom to abuse people when they're in an
| emotionally fragile state. I think it's perfectly fair to
| have a discussion about the validity of the monarchy moving
| forward - and I think it's also perfectly fair to let those
| folks who had some emotional connection (whether reciprocated
| or single-directional) attend a funeral to remember the queen
| in peace.
|
| 1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-
| xpm-2006-04-20-060420... - the government didn't directly
| step in in this case but the protestors were effectively
| silenced by way to crowds of decent folks with loud
| motorcycles.
| [deleted]
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing
| nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly
| fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the
| whole of the UK is like that.
| lupire wrote:
| Fragile, civilized. Potato, potato.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| > They arrested a person for making a video of his dog
| doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is
| singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples'
| expression, the whole of the UK is like that.
|
| And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the
| cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer
| taste. But the movie producers have money.
| gambiting wrote:
| That's like complaining that you will get arrested for
| having sex in the middle of the street, but sex in a film
| is somehow fine(surely it's because movie producers have
| money and are in cahoots with the government, and not for
| any other, more logical reason, like the fact that art
| forms, no matter how poor in taste, are protected by
| society).
| bhk wrote:
| I immediately suspected it was a misleading headline. (NPR was
| a clue.)
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| matthewh806 wrote:
| I see this exact same comment did pretty well on Reddit too:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/xckw5v/comme...
|
| 1. Not all of the arrests have been made at a "funeral" 2. It
| wasn't a funeral 3. If you're going to have a very public
| precession, parading a body through the streets with all the
| obedients lapping it up, surely you have to have a level of
| tolerance for dissenting voices? I imagine the disruption this
| event caused on Edinburgh was pretty large...
|
| There's wall to wall coverage of this event happening worldwide
| right now, we need room for the dissenting voices too.
| Otherwise it's just outright sycophancy
| nimbius wrote:
| i see quite a few confusing or ill spirited comments so I
| suppose most of this thread is from a distinctly United States
| American perspective. Its worth kindly pointing out the UK has
| its own law and order, much of which applies to your character
| and conduct in the public sphere.
|
| Conversely Whilst considered in egregiously poor taste, burlish
| crass and offensive protests are generally permitted in the USA
| provided they are performed on public property. a prime example
| is the Westboro Baptist Church, a cavalcade of questionably
| religious zealots who protest everything from LGBTQ funerals to
| the funerals of war veterans. They shout, scream, and generally
| send mourners into distress and misery for the duration of
| their service.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Oh well that's all right then...
| bjourne wrote:
| The queen was a public figure whose lavish livelihood were paid
| for by British tax-payers. So it seems to me that British
| people should have the right to celebrate her death in any way
| they please. Curtailing people's freedom of speech by misusing
| public order laws (the queen's funeral is not comparable to any
| normal funeral) is curtailing freedom of speech.
| pera wrote:
| Note that the arrests happened during the proclamation ceremony
| of the new king. The funeral will be next Monday.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| True of the first two examples, but:
|
| > in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on
| Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" -- which
| has become a trending hashtag -- near Westminster Hall.
|
| If you count that as rude, you're essentially counting any
| dissent as rude, no?
| mhh__ wrote:
| You should be allowed to have a sign with swearing on it.
|
| If prince Andrew gets to parade around in public give the
| peasants some leeway as well
| bendbro wrote:
| kazinator wrote:
| Police are looking for barrister Paul Powlesland who held up a
| blank sign and only said we was _going_ to write "not my king"
| on it:
|
| https://twitter.com/paulpowlesland/status/156935177260655002...
| Havoc wrote:
| >They are being arrested for being rude about it.
|
| Which is substantially worse.
|
| Rudeness is so subjective and context sensitive that it really
| shouldn't form the basis for arrests
| Gigachad wrote:
| This is the UK. You get arrested for taking a plastic knife
| outside or making mean tweets.
| tills13 wrote:
| It's likely for "disturbing the peace" which is a little more
| cut-and-dry than rudeness. So many weird people on both sides
| of this event, though. I don't care about the queen but props
| to you if you do. Let's just not make it a thing more than it
| needs to be.
| lliamander wrote:
| It may not be good that people are being arrested for
| rudeness, but it is definitely better than them being
| arrested for their political views.
| AndyMcConachie wrote:
| Oh ok. Does that mean if we ask nicely we can dissolve the
| monarchy?
| ipaddr wrote:
| No nor can you dissolve the cia, close down US prisons
| operating in Cuba or get the truth about ufos. Nor can you
| vote for whoever you want to run the country you are given
| two choices.
| haunter wrote:
| I mean yes? Elect MPs, vote for parties that support the
| republic movement for a starter. It doesn't really help when
| all the mainstream parties in the Westminster are royalists.
| [deleted]
| datalopers wrote:
| I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
| collective. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE
| bawolff wrote:
| Im totally A-ok with arresting people disrupting a funeral.
|
| Like sessh. These are people too. Let them have a funeral, you
| can protest them afterwards.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| Disrupting a funeral is one thing. Disrupting a funeral the
| public is forced to pay millions of pounds for, while other
| members of said public can't afford food and electricity, is a
| completely different matter.
| bawolff wrote:
| I don't think that it is. The rich and powerful are still
| real people with real grief. I'm not opposed to people
| protesting parliment or whatever, but let the mourners mourn
| in peace.
| kennend3 wrote:
| I think you missed his point.
|
| The public paid for this funeral, and therefor they have
| every right to participate in it.
|
| They should show some respect, it is a funeral after all.
| If they wanted a "private funeral" they should pay for one.
| bawolff wrote:
| Is it your view that just because the state pays for
| something the public has every right to do whatever they
| want with it?
|
| This seems obviously false. Try walking into the petagon
| some time proclaiming "the public paid for this military
| base and therefor i have every right to participate in
| it." And see how far that gets you.
| prvc wrote:
| I'll bet vanishingly few of the people with their hackles up
| over this spoke out in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church
| when it was in the news for their funeral protests.
| mhh__ wrote:
| This "funeral" is basically shutting down lots of the country
| for a week.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| For all its faults, I love the US. I can go downtown with a sign
| that says "Not my president", and I may get some cheers, may get
| some boos. What I _won 't_ get is arrested.
|
| This is true no matter who is president.
|
| Now, if I were saying this about President Harris, say, when she
| came to visit Biden's body while it was lying in state, that
| would be _deplorable_ taste. It would be worse if my sign
| criticized Biden while his family came to pay their respects.
| That 's pretty extreme levels of being a tasteless jerk. It's not
| grounds for arrest, though... in the US.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| But you can be arrested for crossing the street in the wrong
| place, and you can be shot by the police for any reason,
| including because they feel like it.
| tialaramex wrote:
| To be fair the British cops sometimes shoot black people for
| dubious reasons too. It's taken a bit more seriously here
| (there will automatically be an investigation if anybody dies
| after police contact not only the extremes of "a cop shot
| them" or "he apparently committed suicide while in police
| custody" but even something like "Police called for a welfare
| check, decided everything was fine, but an hour later her
| boyfriend strangled her to death") - but it does happen which
| isn't great, and it is more notable since the vast majority
| of British cops don't have guns, so this means they
| specifically brought in armed police.
| Kukumber wrote:
| That's indeed very worrying, considering their stance on
| "political arrests":
|
| Not too long ago: (Anti-war protesters arrested and beaten in
| Russia) https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60641749
|
| And i suspect the US will follow the UK in the upcoming midterm
| election, 2024 is shaping up to be very interesting too
|
| Democracy is taking a huge hit in the west
| cies wrote:
| When a govt allows itself to be professionally lobbied, and
| those lobbiest are well know by political science profs to
| have "more say in policy decisions than the voters", do you
| think such a govt can ever be truly democratic?
|
| At what point "democracy: becomes a facade, an empty ritual?
|
| (And sadly, more an more a justification to go at war)
| klyrs wrote:
| > I can go downtown with a sign that says "Not my president",
|
| Try that at the next ex-President's funeral.
| cies wrote:
| I recently saw a video of the current one, I was afraid he
| would not make it will christmas.
|
| Unless of course Liz to him her trick. :)
| codefreeordie wrote:
| You would probably not get arrested, but depending on what city
| you did this in, and under what circumstances, you might get
| dead.
| soupbowl wrote:
| Any examples of that happening?
| potta_coffee wrote:
| Well, you may be killed but that's incidental to whatever
| speech you're practicing; you'll just be killed for your
| wallet.
| troutwine wrote:
| Trolling for violent reaction was one of the reasons the
| Westboro Baptist Church would post up outside of funerals.
| So far as I know it rarely worked, if ever.
| mjhay wrote:
| There has been a examples of this happening in the US, yes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/us/protests-policing-
| geor...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/us-police-
| br...
| teachrdan wrote:
| https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/seattle-protester-
| hit-...
|
| "As protesters took to the streets in Indiana on July 6 to
| decry an alleged hate crime at Lake Monroe, a red Toyota
| Corolla sped toward them, dragging two protesters along, on
| the hood and on the side of the car. Both suffered non-
| life-threatening injuries. A few days later, a 66-year-old
| white woman was arrested and charged in the incident."
|
| It was a point of pride for many right wingers to threaten
| to crash their cars into non-violent protestors.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| You say this but IMO its not exactly true.
|
| By far my favorite example is the UC Davis pepper spray event.
| Where sitting sedintary protestors were pepper sprayed by
| campus police (the school then engaged a PR firm to attempt to
| wipe evidence from the internet...)
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper_spray_incident
| miles wrote:
| "The three dozen student demonstrators, meanwhile, were
| collectively awarded US$1 million by UC Davis in a settlement
| from a federal lawsuit, with each pepper-sprayed student
| receiving $30,000 individually."
| carabiner wrote:
| googlryas wrote:
| reddit.com comment material right here.
| Jabbles wrote:
| > It's not grounds for arrest, though... in the US
|
| Are you sure? It's not absolutely certain.
|
| https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1112/funeral-pr...
| haunter wrote:
| That reminds me to my favorite Soviet-era joke
|
| An american reporter visits a communist country and asks a
| person on the street about freedom. He says "America is so free
| I can stand up on the subway and criticize and say anything
| about the president, no one would care about it. How is the
| situation here?" The person replies: "Well I can can stand up
| on the subway and criticize and say anything about the US
| president here too, no one would care about it!"
| vkou wrote:
| > What I won't get is arrested.
|
| You must have missed the summer of love that we had two years
| ago, when crowds of protesters were regularly beaten and
| gassed, and often arrested (Charges would, of course, get
| dropped, because it's not actually illegal to protest.)
|
| But you are correct, it's possible to protest the British
| monarchy as much as you want in the US, with next to
| consequences. :)
| thrown_22 wrote:
| mostly-peaceful.jpg
|
| https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/08/CN...
| tialaramex wrote:
| _Maybe_ what this says is that you 're not paying attention,
| _maybe_ it says you belong to a group who US police are less
| likely to target for arrest. Or maybe you 'd just end up dead
| in a ditch instead of arrested, which doesn't seem better than
| getting arrested.
|
| Bad taste isn't grounds for arrest in the UK either. In the
| unlikely event any of these people end up actually in court,
| they'll be charged with something else, in most cases it seems
| like public order offences. The same sort of charge you'd get
| if the cops arrest you drunk outside a bar yelling abuse at
| people and they decide you won't just sober up and go home with
| a caution.
|
| Here's what the ACLU were able to have released from the White
| House (in the Bush era) about what the Secret Service do to
| prepare before a presidential visit:
|
| "As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators
| from the event site"
|
| It doesn't say they get arrested, but of course if you're not
| free to go about your business, then does it really matter
| whether you were "arrested" or not ?
| sokoloff wrote:
| When later answering questions on a security clearance SF-86
| application or other background check "have you been arrested
| in the last seven years?" would be one way in which it could
| matter.
| ipaddr wrote:
| That is not a question you would be asked. You would be
| asked if you have ever been convicted of a criminal offense
| a pardon wasn't granted for.
| waiwai933 wrote:
| > Section 22 - Police Record
|
| > For this section report information regardless of
| whether the record in your case has been sealed,
| expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or
| the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions
| under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the
| court issued an expungement order under the authority of
| 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all
| incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
|
| > 22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you
| will be asked to provide details for each offense that
| pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
|
| > - In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a
| summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a
| criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the
| citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was
| less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
|
| > - In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by
| any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of
| law enforcement official?
|
| > - In the last seven (7) years have you been charged
| with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any
| court? (Include all qualifying charges, convictions or
| sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or
| non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
|
| > - In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you
| currently on probation or parole?
|
| > - Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on
| criminal charges?
| sokoloff wrote:
| See section 22 here:
| https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
|
| It reads in part:
|
| For this section report information regardless of whether
| the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or
| otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge
| was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the
| Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court
| issued an expungement order under the authority of 21
| U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all
| incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
|
| 22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you
| will be asked to provide details for each offense that
| pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
|
| - In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a
| summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a
| criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the
| citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was
| less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
|
| - In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by
| any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of
| law enforcement official?
|
| - In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with,
| convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court?
| (Include all qualifying charges, convictions or sentences
| in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S.
| court, even if previously listed on this form).
|
| - In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you
| currently on probation or parole?
|
| - Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on
| criminal charges?
| googlryas wrote:
| You can do that in the UK too, just not during a funeral
| procession.
|
| The US has laws against protesting at the funerals of Armed
| Service members. If you really want to rage against something,
| why not the thing from your own society, instead of the thing
| from some other society?
| lupire wrote:
| There is a bit of a correlation between people who are
| ignorant of the world around them, and people who don't see a
| need for civilized behavior.
| rconti wrote:
| Citation? I've never heard this before. I'm aware of the
| westboro baptist protesting at funerals of gay people or
| other "sinners" they don't like; they're wholly awful people.
| I didn't realize it was illegal to protest at a
| servicemember's funeral, though. Does this come out of the
| Vietnam war?
| Janicc wrote:
| This is a country in which people who share memes mocking the
| trans flag are arrested. At least they're being consistent.
| Although obviously I'd prefer neither being arrested in the first
| place.
| Gigachad wrote:
| The official reason that guy got arrested was for "a tweet
| causing anxiety"
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| What fun is a monarchy if you can't have a revolution?
| metacritic12 wrote:
| In order to get towards that goal, Charles III should up the
| ante and use his reserve powers to dissolve parliament. Would
| make for a good show to see what the reaction would be.
| krona wrote:
| > Would make for a good show to see what the reaction would
| be.
|
| Mostly supportive.
| Kukumber wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-12 23:00 UTC)