Jump to content

- - - - -

Million MUSLIM March on D.C. on 9-11-13

WARNING: Due to the extreme conflict of opinions inherent in discussions of this nature, you are hereby warned that this is a NO TOLERANCE zone. Personal insults are NOT TOLERATED and your account may be restricted with NO NOTICE. Please review the forum guidelines at this address: http://dinarvets.com/links/rules.

  Basically... keep it classy, no personal attacks, and if you can't take the heat... head on over to another section.

  DinarVets does not endorse, condone, promote, or otherwise associate with any of the contents herein. The text written is the sole responsibility of the person that posted it.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

#1 DinarMillionaire


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,263 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:05 PM

Million Muslim March On DC Set For 9/11/2013

August 9, 2013 @ NewsEditor

First, let me start by saying that I am not trying to scare anyone and that I’m not asking anyone to think like me. But I am asking people to think. I have many friends in the military who are keeping me up to date on the UN forces that are amassing here in OUR Republic.

The “Million Muslim March” on DC, set for 9/11/2013, is when I expect “things to get out of control.” And this POTUS may try to take advantage of the situation (and by “executive order” begin Martial Law.)With the MASSIVE buildup of UN Forces added to the Islamic Jihad Terrorists already positioned in this country, I believe something may happen; and we better be prepared.

Obama knows we’re all on to him, and he’s being backed into a corner with all of these scandals surrounding him. So what better way to stir up trouble than to have his Muslim brothers amass in DC.? No doubt they’ll have some instigators stir something up. Karl Marx said that “The masses are too stupid and ignorant to understand how good communism will be for them, so they need to be forced down that path, by any and all means possible. Lie, deceive, create class and race warfare issues, and use catastrophes (and if there are none, make some up; the ends justify the means)” Lets face it: Obama wants to be king, and what better way to begin Martial Law than to have his Terrorist Brothers cause problems?

Islamic jihad terrorists are well positioned here and have been for quite a while. Of the world’s 1.9 billion claimed by Islamic leaders, there are an estimated 7-10 million Muslims in the U.S. That is up from 5 million estimated 10 years ago. I believe the 7-10 million is a low-ball figure. No one knows for sure because our Census laws do not allow us to ask about religious affiliation.

All Muslims say the same shahada – confession of faith – There is no God but Allah. Muhammad is Allah’s prophet. That sets the stage for taking over the world for Allah, the establishment of a worldwide caliphate with Shar’ia Law, forced conversion of all infidels – unbelievers in Islam, subjugation in dhimmi of those who will not convert, or elimination of those who have converted or not at the whim of some Islamist leader (starting with any who have left Islam, then in order moving on to Jews, Christians, and others.)

Obama has said there are 2000 mosques, Islamic societies, and such in the U.S. now, up from 1200 10 years ago. Obama should know due to the strong influences on him by Islamists and Marxists; his installing Islamist and Marxist operatives in his tyrannical, despotic, evil regime; and hosting hundreds of Islamist visitors at the White House for consultations with him. The Islamists include Valerie Jarrett – Obama’s closest advisor, born in Iran – and former Secretary of State Hillarious Clinton’s adviser Huma Abedin – who has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Read More at Western Journalism . By Thomas Paine.
  • 11

#2 twolincs


    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • LocationTempe,Az.

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:37 PM

I say we American Citizens of Christian Faith show up with 100 million strong Christian Americans in OUR Country at OUR White House !!!!!


Its still ours isn't it ??

  • 14

#3 SgtFuryUSCZ


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 14,499 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:48 PM

Million Muslim March On DC Set For 9/11/2013

August 9, 2013 @ NewsEditor

 Karl Marx said that “The masses are too stupid and ignorant to understand how good communism will be for them, so they need to be forced down that path, by any and all means possible. Lie, deceive, create class and race warfare issues, and use catastrophes (and if there are none, make some up; the ends justify the means)” Lets face it: Obama wants to be king, and what better way to begin Martial Law than to have his Terrorist Brothers cause problems?



Any of you lefty Kool-Aid drinkers out there going to attend.....?


We double-dog dare you.


Time to put up or shut up .


Here's your opportunity to show the rest of US how committed you are to your muslim brotherhood

radical hiney-kisser.


Let's see a show of hands or admit YOUR OWN COWARDICE.

  • 12

#4 DoD


    Junior Member

  • Platinum VIP
  • 503 posts
  • LocationLas Vegas

Posted 09 August 2013 - 10:14 PM

I say we American Citizens of Christian Faith show up with 100 million strong Christian Americans in OUR Country at OUR White House !!!!!


Its still ours isn't it ??


I like your optimism of thinking there are 100 million strong Christian Americans left in America. After I saw the results of last November

elections, finding 100 million REAL Americans could be a stretch...

  • 3

#5 pattyangel


    Senior Member

  • Platinum VIP
  • 4,246 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 10:27 PM

I say don't give them the satisfaction.    This is what evil wants.  Evil wants us to fall into his trap.  We all know that this administration is devious and we all know his plans are to weaken us to clear the path for totalitarian. 


The ambush should be turned around, we cannot retreat or we will be slaughter. 

  • 5

#6 SgtFuryUSCZ


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 14,499 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 10:31 PM





Which is why these 3 Patriots defy the alligator-mouthed hobummer lovers to

put up - or shut up once and for all.




They have disenfranchised US Patriots for this criminal -

let's see THEM get behind THIS.

  • 3

#7 skitealwedrop


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,895 posts
  • LocationDallas, TX

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:09 PM

I hate the Muslim religion. When will they go home? The US needs to take a serious look at all individuals that enter the US. I'm a racist now. I have no other option. I want to protect my country,

  • 13

#8 aliciadogz



  • Members
  • 3,326 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:22 PM

I don't think I have ever been so scared for my country and myself and MY DOGZ. I sure hate being alone not having someone to be there for me.This is just too scary for me.

  • 3

#9 pattyangel


    Senior Member

  • Platinum VIP
  • 4,246 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:35 PM

I don't think I have ever been so scared for my country and myself and MY DOGZ. I sure hate being alone not having someone to be there for me.This is just too scary for me.


Mydogz, don't give into fear.  Your not alone,  God and his angels are at your side.  Trust in Jesus. 


No your neighbors/community and stick with like minded people like you.  Stay in touch with us here at DV land.  Keep educating yourself. 

Stock up on supplies, just like if a storm hits.  Water, batteries, medical, food and more.  Start now. 


I will keep you in my prayers dear sweetie, along with your dogz. 

Edited by pattyangel, 09 August 2013 - 11:36 PM.

  • 2

#10 jg1


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,748 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:38 PM

I'm sure Christians showing up at this rally would create a safety concern and they would have to leave or be jailed and who knows what else. 


Dearbornistan: Christians attacked at Arab Festival (Kuffar News edit)



http://<iframe width...creen></iframe>

Edited by jg1, 09 August 2013 - 11:38 PM.

  • 3

#11 jon29


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,406 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:43 PM

This is unreal, I cannot believe an event like this is actually planned to take place. Things are getting bad in the ol' U.S. of A. and no doubt war on our own soil is on the way sometime in the future.

  • 0

#12 aliciadogz



  • Members
  • 3,326 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:44 PM

Mydogz, don't give into fear.  Your not alone,  God and his angels are at your side.  Trust in Jesus. 


No your neighbors/community and stick with like minded people like you.  Stay in touch with us here at DV land.  Keep educating yourself. 

Stock up on supplies, just like if a storm hits.  Water, batteries, medical, food and more.  Start now. 


I will keep you in my prayers dear sweetie, along with your dogz. 

Thank you Pattyangel your are and AWESOME Person.

  • 1

#13 jg1


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,748 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:58 PM

The Right of Public Protest

The issue: To what extent should governmental bodies be allowed to regulate mass protests in the name of protecting the public and the peace?

  • Supporters of unfettered protest say: Freedom of speech and assembly is an inviolate right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Only acts of violence and other illegal acts arising from protests should be restricted. Furthermore, police and city administrations have been given too much power, and are silencing legal protests by moving protesters far from the focus of their protests.
  • Critics of unfettered protest say: The public has a right to be protected from mass protests that could potentially turn violent. It is the duty of the government to protect its citizens, and to safeguard their right to live peaceably. In addition, the First Amendment right of assembly is not absolute; when protests threaten to become violent or to endanger citizens and/or government property, the government must have the means to protect both its citizens and itself.


The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere. Thomas Jefferson

The act of public protest dates back to the first recorded civilizations. Hyginus, a Latin author from the first century, tells the story of Agnodice (506 B.C.), a woman who studied medicine disguised as a man with the idea of offering gynecological services to women. When the women of Athens began seeking out Agnodice in droves, the male doctors, outraged that their female patients preferred Agnodice, brought her to trial for malpractice. At that point, she publicly revealed her sex, and the male doctors then tried to enforce the law prohibiting women from practicing medicine. Prominent women of Athens protested so vociferously that they succeeded in changing the law to allow women to study medicine.

Since that time, the act of protest has served as a catalyst for action among oppressed people worldwide, as well as a megaphone for people of all stripes to express their points of view. Public protest has enjoyed particular success in the history of the U.S.

In 1955, in Montgomery, Ala., hundreds of thousands of African Americans boycotted city buses for more than a year in protest of the city's law relegating African Americans to the back seats of the bus. In the 1960s, students in universities across the U.S. organized mass protests to demonstrate against the U.S.'s involvement in the Vietnam War. Whether in the form of a march in Washington, D.C., of more than one million to demand equal rights for women, or a picket line formed by a dozen protesters in front of a medical center that performs abortions, public protest remains one of the most elemental and robust rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constitution.


Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A crowd estimated at 250,000 protests the Bush administration in a march up Seventh Avenue in New York City the day before the Republican National Convention was to begin in 2004.

As long as public demonstrations have existed, so too has the government's attempts to regulate protesters' rights. Police suppressed union members seeking to organize unions and strike for better working conditions during the first quarter of the 20th century; cities across the U.S. have passed laws requiring that protesters obtain city permits in order to demonstrate; and during protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, enforcement agencies sought to limit protesters to particular areas, designated "free speech zones," and made arrests where no actual violence had occurred. As a result, there often exists a tenuous line between peaceful demonstration and violence, as protesters find it more and more difficult to have their voices heard, and as taunts by both demonstrators and police lead to physical clashes.

There is an even finer line between the rights of those wanting to express their views en masse and in public, and individuals who, as also protected by the Constitution, want to be free to go about living their lives and making individual choices. Mass protests can literally block individuals living along protest routes from leaving or getting to their homes and workplaces, and individuals acting lawfully can feel threatened by angry citizens. Since the earliest days of this nation, the courts, the police and the local and federal legislatures have struggled to find the balance between the liberties of those inherently conflicting individuals.

The right to publicly protest in the U.S. stems from the original tenets of the Constitution: the First Amendment's right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Because protesters use the court system to argue for their right to freedom of speech and assembly under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has emerged as the central arbiter of free speech in this country. While it is undisputed that the right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Constitution, to what extent it protects the right to publicly protest remains a thorny issue.

The right to protest is neither a liberal nor a conservative issue, but rather is universal, delimited only by the issue under protest. Thus, those heading to the courthouse to defend their right to protest include a broad cross-section of the American populace. One protest Web site lists the following topics for which it provides information on upcoming protests: animal rights, children and education, civil rights, death penalty, drugs, elections and democracy, environment, fascism, feminism, food and agriculture, globalization and imperialism, human rights, immigration, Iraq, labor unions, media, peace, poverty, prisons, race, religion, sexuality and gender, Third World, other. But no matter the political bent of those protesting, the main issue remains constant: To what extent can the government, both at the federal and state levels, regulate the public's right to organize and execute protest demonstrations?

Proponents of protesters' rights argue that freedom of speech is inviolate, and that only acts otherwise prohibited by law--such as arson, murder and theft--that stem from the protests should be curbed. They argue, as well, that police wield a disproportionate amount of power compared with the protesters, and that the police use this power to squelch rather than protect the right to publicly demonstrate, through threats, intimidation and unjustified attacks.

Opponents of unfettered protest, on the other hand, argue that it is the duty of the government, including the police, to safeguard both the protesters' rights and other citizens' right to live peaceably. It is also the duty of the government to ensure that its cities and lands are protected and kept running safely and efficiently, they contend, and thus attempts to regulate protest are a vital means of maintaining peace and order. Finally, they contend that the First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble, not the absolute right to assembly.

Public Protest Defined as a Basic Constitutional Right

In the first-ever session of Congress, in 1791, members of the Constitutional Convention ratified the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Known collectively as the Bill of Rights, they restricted the government's ability to limit certain fundamental rights. First among the enumerated rights of citizens is that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment's freedom of speech and assembly language is the most widely known tenet of the Constitution. But the amendment's parameters, articulated over time by the courts and by both state legislatures and the U.S. Congress, remain unclear as citizens constantly seek to redefine their rights and privileges under the doctrine.


AP/Wide World Photos

A sheriff fingerprints Rosa Parks in February 1956 in Montgomery, Ala. Her arrest inspired a city-wide boycott of Montgomery buses that lasted over a year.

One of the defining activities that is protected by the constitutional right to free speech and peaceable assembly is the right to organized political protest, whether by one person or by hundreds of thousands. Free speech, in its simplest sense, involves the right to speak one's mind, through face-to-face confrontations, broadcast speech, or by writing in newspapers, periodicals and pamphlets. Those types of speech are considered "speech" in the classic sense and are afforded the highest degree of protection.

However, the Supreme Court has also recognized types of speech known as "expressive speech," which encompasses picketing, patrolling, marching, distribution of leaflets and pamphlets, as well as addresses to publicly assembled audiences, door-to-door solicitation and many forms of "sit-ins." Because expressive speech involves conduct, or action, rather than merely speech, it has been held subject to greater regulation and scrutiny than simple speech.

Just how strict is the court's scrutiny of the government's restrictions on the right to speech and assembly depends upon how the court defines the space being used for the public protest. In the 1988 case Boos v. Barry, the Supreme Court held that where protests, parades and picketing activities take place in such public spaces as streets and parks, "citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." The court delineates three types of spaces: public spaces, quasi-public spaces (such as school auditoriums open to local government council meetings), and reserved spaces (private spaces opened for the use of a specific public purpose, such as a speech by the president). The court observes government restrictions in the latter two categories with far less scrutiny than it does when it comes to traditional public spaces. It is with regard to such traditional public spaces that most proponents and opponents of protest demonstrations argue for their rights.

While political speech in traditional public forums is afforded a very high level of First Amendment protection, the Supreme Court has ruled that governments may place reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on protest. Those restrictions, first delineated in the 1941 case Cox v. New Hampshire, take into account such matters as control of traffic in the streets, the scheduling of two meetings or demonstrations at the same time and place, and the prevention of blockages of building entrances.

For the purpose of placing such restrictions on the use of public forums, the courts have held that the First Amendment allows the government to impose permit requirements, as well as to issue injunctions defining the parameters of protesters' rights. Such requirements, however, are only permissible if they (a) are not based upon the content of the message; (B) are narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests; and © leave ample alternative methods for the speech to occur.

That means that for a restriction to be permissible, it must not be contingent upon the content of the message, must be no more limiting than absolutely necessary, and must leave sufficient opportunities for individuals to communicate their message. Examples of acceptable time, place and manner restrictions include: a local government passing an ordinance that prohibits any protest within 1,000 feet of a hospital; a state government creating a "no-protest zone" around the entrance of abortion clinics; and a municipal ordinance restricting the use of sound amplification systems to between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. and between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.

On the other hand, the following are considered impermissible restrictions: a city law giving the mayor discretion to decide which groups will be granted a demonstration permit; a town law prohibiting displays of signs advertising political events or viewpoints for more than 10 days before or three days after a political event; and a city law stating that no one may hand out literature on the street, in order to prevent unsightly litter on the sidewalks.

Furthermore, the rights of free speech and assembly may not be abridged simply because government officials fear that such speech or assembly will provoke a disorderly reaction in an audience of the public at large, a so-called heckler's veto. The Supreme Court has noted:

[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.

The Supreme Court has considered that matter on many occasions. In almost every instance, the court has decided that it is impermissible to place a prior restraint on speakers who wish to exercise their constitutional rights because their actions are likely to provoke resentment, disorderliness or hostility in others. Only when a speaker "passes the bounds of argument or persuasion and undertakes incitement to riot" can he or she then be arrested for disorderly conduct. Armed with those basic parameters, the courts have sought to balance the rights of protesters against the rights of those persons or entities being protested against, as well as the public at large.

Recent Protests Face Increased Restraints

In the past few decades, the right to protest has experienced increased restraints in the political arena. Greater permit restraints and so-called free speech zones--areas cordoned off and designated for protester use--have increasingly separated the protesters from their intended audience.

For example, in the wake of mass protests in Seattle, Wash., in 1999 by environmentalists protesting the policies of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the city set up a 25-block protest-free zone for the WTO members and meeting attendees. Protesters sued the city, but the courts upheld the Seattle mayor's decision, ruling that the violence of the protests had justified the blockade. Despite the court victory, the policy was so unpopular with the people of Seattle that it was a major reason for the mayor's loss in the next election. However, the court's decision has served as an example to other city governments, and city administrations are spending increasingly large sums of money to provide ample police protection when protests are expected.

In late August 2004, an estimated 250,000 protesters marched in New York City at the commencement of the Republican National Convention, in protest of the policies of the Bush administration. Others continued protesting through the week, but many complained that their voices were not being heard because they were being physically prevented from getting anywhere near the convention proper. Police officers and national guardsmen in riot gear brandished bullhorns and plastic orange "nets" that corralled both protesters and ordinary citizens. But most alarming to the protesters was the placement of the free speech zones. The pens were located anywhere from one block to one mile away from the actual site of the convention.

Antiabortion demonstrators and antilogging protesters have also noted with alarm the increasing use of such tactics to "protect" the protesters' right to publicly demonstrate. Overall, veteran protesters note with alarm the increased restraints by police and city administrators against attempts by protesters to voice their concerns. As a result, the debate has intensified over the extent to which the government can limit mass protests, especially where there has been no violence, and no evidence of impending violence, by the protesters.

Broad Protest Rights Supported


Vietnam veterans pile up their medals and awards as part of an antiwar demonstration in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C., April 26, 1971.

Supporters of an unfettered right to protest argue that those who wish to express their constitutionally protected right of dissent should not be denied that right. They claim that city and state administrations and police seek to use government regulation to minimize, marginalize or squelch the voice of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who seek to express themselves through mass protest.

Tom Hayden, an activist who is a veteran of the 1960s protest movement, explains both the urgency of protest and the incipient danger inherently involved in the process of dissent:

Protest, even more than property, is a sacred resource of American society. Prophetic minorities instigated the American Revolution, ended slavery, achieved the vote for women, made trade unions possible, and saved our rivers from becoming sewers. Protest by its nature challenges authority. It cannot be managed or commodified without losing its essence.

Because protest, by its nature, stems from the perceived need to address grievances, a clash of interests is inevitable, supporters assert. Government and police officials often act so oppressively in response to protesters' efforts to mobilize mass public protest that they threaten the most basic tenets of the Constitution, proponents claim. While they recognize the need to keep order, supporters argue that only actual crimes committed during the protests, such as arson or assault, should be curbed.

Protesters argue that the unpopularity of their message is often factored into the government's decision to curb their First Amendment rights. In one prominent court case, the Supreme Court overturned the city of Chicago's decision to deny the Ku Klux Klan's permit application to march through a Jewish enclave of Chicago while waving swastikas and shouting anti-Semitic slogans. The Supreme Court agreed with the protesters' argument that the threat of violence posed by the proposed Klan march was not beyond reasonable police control, and that the local government's attempted denial of the right to march--based on the threat of violence--was unjustified.

Some supporters of broad rights of protest express concern that in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the U.S., freedom of speech is being curbed in favor of stricter security measures. They point to laws such as the 2001 federal Patriot Act, a sweeping antiterrorism law that, among other things, strengthens the ability of law enforcement agencies to obtain search warrants and personal information on U.S. citizens. As Kenneth Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center, asks, "At a time when we're growing accustomed to being patted down before we board an airplane, how outrageous does it sound to move protesters across town in the interest of public safety?"

Freedom of assembly advocates also point to less visible tactics that police and city administrators use to erode the right to protest. While not every protest grows to violence that invokes police use of rubber bullets, pepper spray, water guns and bodily physical restraint, protesters fiercely denounce the subtler tactics of police and government officials that protesters claim essentially seek to silence the protests. As examples of what they say is the government's not-so-subtle trampling of basic constitutional rights, protest supporters point to patrols with private attack dogs and armed guards; heavy barricades blocking normal street traffic; the use of free speech zones; threats to reporters who attempt to speak with protesters; and the shutting down of whole areas--as many as 25 blocks in Seattle during the 1999 WTO meeting--adjacent to sites expected to be the target of public protesters.

In particular, protest advocates decry the recent denial of access to the block surrounding Madison Square Garden in New York City, in which the Republican National Convention was being held, during the four days of the convention. The city and the police attempted to shuffle protest groups off to the sidelines and into free speech zones, which were situated blocks from the convention site and far from the eyes of the media and convention delegates and attendees.


Stephen Chernin/Getty Images

In denying protesters the right to demonstrate in Central Park in August 2004, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg ® claimed that a large-scale protest would damage the landscape of the park.

In addition, and most noted by the mainstream press, the city administration denied the protesters access to the grounds of New York's Central Park, unequivocally a public space, for a mass rally at the end of a massive march on the day before the convention. After protest organizers applied for a permit to hold the rally, city Mayor Michael Bloomberg ® denied the permit. He explained that it would be too costly for the city to repair the likely damage that would be done to the grass in the park.

Protest organizers immediately appealed the city's decision. They pointed out that earlier in the year, a rock band had been granted a permit for a large crowd in the same section of Central Park, and that this was evidence of content-based discrimination. Furthermore, the protesters argued that the mayor and his administration were preemptively curbing protesters' constitutional rights to protest by suggesting that there was a threat of protester violence, even though there was no sign of violence.

Another point of contention among supporters of broad protest rights is that police and city officials, in advance of anticipated protests, will often create what they say are unwarranted protest-free zones. In the instance of the WTO talks in Seattle, protesters decried the city's mayor for creating a 25-block blockade to protect the WTO delegates and conference attendees from either physical or verbal assaults from protesters, after three days of violence ground the WTO talks to a halt. The protesters were especially angered that the blockade included public property and "WTO delegate shopping areas" that were off-limits to protesters.

Protesters argued that although it was undeniable that the protests had led to violence and vandalism, the 25-block ban in Seattle was an unfair denial of their right to be heard. "The right of assembly is the right to stand together in public places and voice our views, typically directed towards those with whom we disagree," Paulson writes. "In this case, the city of Seattle's inability to control hundreds of unruly protesters cut off the assembly rights of thousands."

Critics Seek Greater Regulation of Protests

Those who would limit the right to protest say that maintaining public safety is paramount. They claim that unfettered protest would lead to violence against innocent people, and would be a catalyst to rioting that would lead to damage to the areas in which the protests take place.

Critics point to the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle as an example. The Seattle police force found itself understaffed when confronted by hundreds of thousands of angry protesters voicing their objections to policies of the WTO. Protests turned violent, with clashes between the police and the protesters growing from vocal taunts into bottle throwing on the part of the protesters, and the use of rubber bullets, tear gas and pepper spray on the part of the police.


AP/Wide World

Demonstrators in Seattle, Wash. protest outside a meeting of the World Trade Organization in 1999.

The WTO meetings were brought to a halt as the WTO members were unable to safely travel from the meeting sites to their hotel accommodations. Furthermore, violence by both the police and the protesters escalated, with some of the more aggressive protesters looting some of the shops that had been shut down due to the disruption. The police and the city used the violence to order a crackdown on the protests, arresting thousands of people, and justified the 25-block protest-free zone around the WTO meetings as necessary to protect the WTO attendees' own freedom of speech and peaceable assembly rights.

District Judge Barbara Rothstein upheld the closures around the WTO meetings. "Free speech must sometimes bend to public safety," she wrote in her decision. "There is no evidence that the 'manifest purpose' of the city was to quell expression." She noted that the protesters' voices would not be silenced, as they still had access to the media and to the public outside of the zone.

Critics of unregulated protest note that police officials often justify their decision to beef up security around an intended protest site as necessary to "preserve the peace" and to protect the interests of all people involved in the protests. That includes the protesters, those against whom the protests are being directed, and innocent bystanders. Police may base their decision to prepare with riot training and the imposition of sidewalk barricades on a study of past, similar protests, on discussions with protest coordinators, on information gleaned about the protesters, and upon the advice and consent of government administrators.

City officials claim that the permit process is necessary to maintain a safe environment for both protesters and nonprotesters. They argue, with support from the courts, that speech or expressive conduct can and must be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass. Furthermore, they argue, the government may regulate a protest marcher's use of the streets based on the legitimate interests previously enumerated by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, critics of unfettered protest rights say that the right to protest is not absolute. When protesters were denied a permit to organize the rally in New York City's Central Park on the eve of the 2004 Republican National Convention, protesters attempted to override the denial. The New York City Police Department's chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, told a reporter that "you can think of permits as sometimes allowing things that would not otherwise be permitted, such as blocking a street. Free speech is allowed at any time, but if you're going to use amplified noise or speakers, we could react accordingly."

Opponents assert that the idea that the right to protest is not absolute was solidified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the Christian Knights of KKK v. District of Columbia case. The appeals court wrote that, when using a public forum, "speakers do not have a constitutional right to convey their message whenever, wherever they please." The court explained that the government may regulate a marcher's use of the streets based on legitimate interests, such as: the accommodation of conflicting demands by potential users of the same space; the protection of those disinterested onlookers, or "captive audience," who live in the vicinity of where the protests are being proposed; and the need to protect public order.

In addition, those who advocate restrictions and permit requirements on mass protests point to the impact that such large-scale protests can have on the landscape of the city. That, in fact, was the primary defense that New York City officials gave for denying protesters the right to organize a mass rally in Central Park, which had undergone a massive and expensive renovation in the 1990s. Conservationists expressed great concern that the protesters' rally would virtually destroy all of the work that had been done to that area of the park, and would cost millions of dollars to repair. The courts upheld the city's decision, ruling that the city passed the U.S. Supreme Court's basic requirements for denying permits.

In particular, the court found that the city showed that there was a substantial government interest in protecting the park and preserving it for all park-goers. (The city had claimed that the rally's effects would render the grass in the proposed protest area unusable for the entirety of the fall season.) The court also found that the city's denial was not based on the content of the protesters' speech, and that the city had provided an alternative forum for the rally--a park along the highway blocks from the convention site.

Limits on Constitutional Right to Protest Continue to Evolve

The First Amendment makes absolutely clear that freedom of speech and peaceable assembly are inviolable rights of Americans. However, the Supreme Court has also made clear, in interpreting the language of the Constitution and the words and directives of the Founding Fathers, that the right is not absolute. According to the court, free speech must be tempered by the need to protect the citizenry from violence and undue imposition on nonprotesters' rights to free speech and to live their lives without undue harassment.

How much restraint to impose remains the key, and undecided, issue. With the increased threat of terrorism casting a pall over public and political events, the line between protecting the right to free speech and the need to protect the citizenry as a whole has become blurred. In the last few years, the protester rights issue has assumed a new urgency in national debates.

Dissent is a vital element of democracy, perhaps the vital element. The expression of dissent through public protest--from the Boston Tea Party of 1773 to the protesters of Franklin Roosevelt's World War II policy to protesters supporting bicycle riders' rights--has catalyzed change in government and society from the very founding of the U.S. Also since that founding, there has existed debate over how to protect the rights of individuals to pursue their interests while also protecting the rights of protesters to speak out against such individuals. So long as people are free to speak their minds, the debate will thrive.

Discussion Questions & Activities

1) What causes would you be willing to go out and protest for?

2) In creating "protest free" zones around particular events, is the government protecting the public from possibly violent demonstrations or is it merely trampling on First Amendment rights? Where should the government draw the line in regulating protest?

3) Do you think concerns about terrorism justify stricter security measures at planned demonstrations?

4) Is concern over damage to the landscape of a town or city sufficient reason to bar mass protests in certain areas, such as parks?

5) Research a major public protest in the U.S.: Was the protest peaceful or violent? Did police or other officials take any steps to limit the protest, and did those steps affect whether the protest was peaceful or violent?


Hartford, Bruce. "Notes from a Non-Violent Training Session." (1963). [accessed October 6, 2004]: www.crmvet.org.

Hauser, Christine, and Diane Cardwell. "Judge Lets City Bar Convention Protest on Park's Great Lawn." New York Times (August 23, 2004): A4.

Haydon, Tom. "Dissent Must Come Alive in New York." Newsday (Aug. 20, 2004). [accessed August 24, 2004]: www.newsday.com.

Hightower, Jim. "Bush Zones Go National." The Nation (Aug. 16/23, 2004): 27.

Katz, Jonathan M. "Thou Dost Protest Too Much: An old law turns protesters into threats against the president." Slate (Sept. 21, 2004) [accessed Sept. 23, 2004]: www.slate.com.

New York Civil Liberties Union. "New Rights Defense Campaign: Briefing Papers, January 2003." [accessed Sept. 6, 2004]: www.nyclu.org

Paulson, Kenneth A. "Marches at a standstill: The new limits on assembly." FreedomForum.org (Feb. 2, 2003). [accessed August 24, 2004]: www.freedomforum.org.

"The Right to Choose Protest." The Wall Street Journal. (Feb. 27, 2003): A2.

Additional Sources

Additional information on right of public protest can be found in the following sources:

Miller, Douglas T. On Our Own: Americans in the Sixties. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1996.

Randall, Adrian, and Andrew Charlesworth. Moral Economy and Popular Protest: Crowds, Conflict and Authority. New York: St. Martin's Press: 2000.

Contact Information

Information on how to contact organizations that are either mentioned in the discussion of the right of public protest or can provide additional information on the subject is listed below:

First Amendment Center 
Vanderbilt University 
1207 18th Avenue S. 
Nashville, Tenn. 37212 
Telephone: (615) 727-1600 
Internet: www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Office of the Attorney General of the United States 
Attorney General John Ashcroft 
Washington, D.C. 20530-1000 
Telephone: (202) 514-2217 
Internet: www.usdoj.gov/ag/

Center for Constitutional Rights 
666 Broadway, 7th Floor 
New York, N.Y. 10012 
Telephone: (212) 614-6464 
Internet: www.ccr-ny.org

Key Words and Points

For further information about the ongoing debate over the right of public protest, search for the following words and terms in electronic databases and other publications:

Protest marches 
Civil rights 
War protests 
Cox v. New Hampshire

© 2013 Facts On File News Services

Modern Language Association (MLA)


"The Right of Public Protest." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 15 Oct. 2004. Web. 10 Aug. 2013. <http://www.2facts.com/article/i0902270>.

For further information see Citing Sources in MLA Style.

Facts On File News Services' automatically generated MLA citations have been updated according to the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 7th edition.

American Psychological Association (APA)

Citation format:

The title of the article. (Year, Month Day). Issues & Controversies On File. Retrieved Month Day, Year, from Issues & Controversies database.

See the American Psychological Association (APA) Style Citations for more information on citing in APA style.

  • 1

#14 SgtFuryUSCZ


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 14,499 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 12:06 AM

I don't think I have ever been so scared for my country and myself and MY DOGZ. I sure hate being alone not having someone to be there for me.This is just too scary for me.



We're glad you listened to PrettyPATTYANGEL :) She is right, you are not alone.


We here at DV care about you AND your DOGZ very much.  And as she shared with you,

do not give in to "fear"... it only empowers evil.


We know that you know God. 


We call God our Father, Mother God because God is like a parent for us....

consoles us when we hurt, calms us when we are afraid, helps us to find the answers we seek...


Hand your fear over to God, MYDOGZ... God knows what to do with it  and you know God does

not want you - his perfect child - to ever be afraid, so he will take that burden from you - gladly.


By now you should be feeling more at peace -- and calmer, too.... :wub:


Take a deep breath... God had his loving arms wrapped all around you and is holding you close and

tight and keeping you safe.


And we're all here, too..... :)

  • 4

#15 Heavyduty053



  • Members
  • 2,454 posts
  • LocationHartselle, Ala

Posted 10 August 2013 - 06:14 AM

We stand together, patriots, expatriots, believers, non believers, will all come together when the evil of this magnitude raises it's head. We will prevail because this is Gods Land and with his guidance Evil will be caged.

  • 4

#16 Kaduku


    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 1,069 posts
  • LocationConstitution 007, 2nd Amendment Rights, Texas 00007

Posted 10 August 2013 - 07:41 AM




I SAY WITH WEAPONS IN HAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 3

#17 twolincs


    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • LocationTempe,Az.

Posted 10 August 2013 - 10:34 AM

I like your optimism of thinking there are 100 million strong Christian Americans left in America. After I saw the results of last November

elections, finding 100 million REAL Americans could be a stretch...

The American Christians that think like you Will bring this country to its knees. Stats show America is still 75% Christian Faith Based Population. Stand up or loose it all !!!!!!


No disrespect intended . . . The truth has no Agenda !!!!!!!

Edited by twolincs, 10 August 2013 - 10:35 AM.

  • 2

#18 sxsess


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,185 posts
  • LocationHouston, Texas

Posted 10 August 2013 - 12:54 PM

I don't think I have ever been so scared for my country and myself and MY DOGZ. I sure hate being alone not having someone to be there for me.This is just too scary for me.

My dogz you are not alone! We will prevail with a thing called asymmetrical warfare! There are those here that who know what I'm talking about and for those that don't research. This is the type of welfare where nothing is off limits. Americans will never be defeated but America will be destroyed. Patriots will fight this type of war to the bitter end, and by that time everything will be destroyed. We need to get more organized! Join your local militia. You will be surprised how many there are. Evil will be defeated.
  • 0



    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,868 posts
  • LocationBakken Oil Field-by way of UK,Europe,Afrika,Asia & M.East

Posted 10 August 2013 - 02:54 PM

I say we American Citizens of Christian Faith show up with 100 million strong Christian Americans in OUR Country at OUR White House !!!!!


Its still ours isn't it ??

The White House no longer belongs to us; Obama closed it, remember ? Now it's his Private residence. Hail to the King.

  • 0

#20 stealthwarrior


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,620 posts
  • Locationsomewhere south of sanity

Posted 10 August 2013 - 04:17 PM

I personally don't have that many bullets but with the 1200 member gun club we might come close.

  • 1

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

  • Privacy Policy