Close Topic Options

The Law Of Roadside Camping - Page 3

Arvhic, I never mentioned taking away the right to protest peacefully. Please do not put words and meanings behind what I say, especially when you make it sound as if I was saying something I was not. What I meant was that a lot of things that have begun with good, peaceful intentions have turned out for the worst. It's one thing if it's outside the White House, which is, essentially, a public domain. But this is the man's home. That would be like having a hundred people gathered right outside your house standing on the sidewalk. Technically, they are on public land, but they are still obstructing your property. It would get rather bothersome, I would say, if everytime you went to pull into your driveway you had to maneuver around a large group of people.

You posed the question of how often the president is at his ranch. That can speak for both sides, really. If he isn't there that often, why even bother wasting your time standing outside of an empty house? It's pointless, and in my opinion, does not strengthen an argument, regardless of what they are or are not protesting.

Men and women enlist in the military service today knowing that they run incredibly high risks of being sent oversees. If a person is not willing to take that risk, they should not enlist. Simple as that. I respect and greatly admire the courage that these men and women have to put their lives on the line. I agree with Nighthawk that by protesting that her son died, she is sort of denying her son the admirable deed he did.

Camping Roadside Law The

Many opinions have been expressed here with both sides having good points but I really agree with arvhic in the sense of the purpose behind this law. It seems to me based on what you all are saying and my personal research on the matter that the reason behind it is mostly political and the excuse used to justify such actions are "safety issues" which makes the whole issue so bias and unfair.

You are very right, I just wonder if most regular folks in the US get all this attention and laws passed just because some people are outside your sidewalk. Hmmm...I don't think so.

I don't understand this concept. If lots of demonstrations as you said start peacefully and then end up bad, then let's stop all peaceful demonstrations period before they become a problem. Do I sound ridiculous right?. Then, we cannot stop something just because it may become a problem in the future. This are not grounds for such a thing based solely in the thinking it could become something bad out of it.

Hmmm, but that's the whole point. These people were NOT trasspasing private property. They were NOT in Pres. Bush's land.

As far as Cindy Sheehan, we may agree or disagree with what she says or not and the way she wants to portrait her son. I do not think any of us have any right to say anything about her, first of all because we do not know her personally, we do not know the pains she went and goes through with the lost of her son and we do not know the psychological consequences that the death of her brought to her, so it is very unfair to even suggest that she may tried to fulfill an agenda. It may seem that way, yet we just do not know because we are not on her shoes, simply as that.

The Law Of Roadside Camping History & Civil Business Politics

Sorry Babyblue I never meant to skewer your meaning.

But I still don't understand what you mean about stopping a protest before it becomes a problem. Protests are normally stopped before they become problems anyway right? Isn't thast the role of law enforcement agencies? I haven't seen any sign that this protest was escalating into a problem. I think the fact that Sheehan left on her own accord would suggest there was never any risk.

I don't believe protests should be stopped for poltical reasons. It is blatant censorship and I don't have to begin to draw comparisons with some better known examples of this from history.

I'm surprised this would happen in the US. I always thought people were free to have their say in a peaceful manner.

If these protestors were actually on Bush's land they would have last a whole 15 minutes before being removed. As for protesting at that site despite the President not living there, I believe that is a symbolic move. I don't believe they were removed until it became damaging against the Government.

Cindy never spruiked her son's POV. She expressed her own. And do we know what her son thought while serving in Iraq? I will never understand why it is offensive to protest against war. Nobody is protesting against the soldiers, they are protesting against the decision to go to war, generally made by public servants who have never seen battle.

I hold the view that protesting against war is honouring her son, because it is an attempt to save more lives in his name. And saving lives is what this is all about. War isn't about saving lives, quite the opposite.

Page 3 Camping Roadside Law The

In the interest of peace Cindy Sheehan protested the war. That is fine. In the interest of peace law enforcement let her camp there and didn't remove her. While the media was there, they were almost certainly trying to interview various security guards and they wanted the Presidents view on what was going on. I know if I hired security personnel and they were busy talking to reporters instead of doing their job I would have a very big problem. Cindy was not creating a disturbance, the media was. The laws were not passed to prevent people from protesting , they were passed to prevent people from gathering in a public place and causing traffic problems, such as the media. Protestors are still allowed to protest but they have to let the city know, by filling out various forms and paying various fees, that way the city can have the police shut down streets and then police and protestors will be working together. Then they can have all the media attention they want without fear of getting arrested.

Camping Roadside Law The

I think it is wrong to blame the media for this. So what if they wanted to get Bush's opinion on an extremely important matter where he is personally accountable? Cindy Sheehan's sone wouldn't have died had Bush not sent him over there. Everyone keeps forgetting that simple fact. Is the death of Cindy Sheehan's son not important enough for the President?

Isn't that is his job, just as questioning the president is the media's? People are quick to blame the media for everything. The media doesn't make news, with the exception of some networks like Fox, they report it. Without the media none of you would have any idea what is going on in the world.

Cindy's protest obviously was designed to attract media attention, and it was very clever in doing that. The issue here is whether her voice silenced for being a public nuisance or whether it was censored for political reasons. I would hope, for the sake of the US people, that is was not the latter reason.