Ben and Jerry, the founders of Ben and Jerry ice cream, were arrested and fined $50 for protesting.
Liberals applaud it as an effective way to handle protests.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co-founders-of-ben-and-jerrys-arrested-at-us-capitol/ar-BBrW5tb?li=BBnb7Kz
>Just yesterday alone, around 300 people were arrested. They were not blocking "heavy pedestrian throughways" as one comment suggested either, these protests have been planned and even coordinated with the police (yes, they do that in DC), so they were already prepared and ready to process people onsite. In fact, nobody is even placed in handcuffs. The protest is civil, and as such people were placed into small groups and escorted over to a police trailer that processed them and ticketed them for a $50 processing fee, and then they are sent on their way.
>This should be at the top. DC knows how to do and handle protests.
>Courts have interpreted the constitution so that it can be relaxed to allow governments to pass "reasonable" laws, even though they may violate an absolute constitutional principal. The First Amendment protects your right to peacefully assemble - within reason. You are restricted from protesting in certain places - you cannot do things like block traffic or put others at risk because of a protest (even if it is peaceful). I think governments can also require that you apply for a permit before a large-scale protest.
These people disgust me. We have turned protests into organized picnics to be fined and meticulously controlled.
>liberals commodify a means of resisting the State and make it part of the existing power structure
Oh, tell me something I don't know...
>>71452129
I need a hug. I know liberals are terrible people but to actually read the words of people who thinks the way we lock up protesters is "reasonable" makes me want to rip my own head off.
Why do people even care about these people anymore since they don't even own their company anymore?
>>71452323
This thread's mainly about arresting protestors and the liberals who think it's a good idea. I.e.:
>. DC knows how to do and handle protests.
>arrest protesters and fine them $50
>democracy spring
don't care about a group of soros funded protests
>>71452007
Imagine if they tried that shit in Fergeson or Baltimore. It would have totally stopped all those upstanding niggers from rioting and looting their city.
>>71452498
Why can't I pay the $50 up front and not get fucked with by the cops?
>>71452007
Liberals and SJW's control the system are pandered to nonstop in the media, they have to pretend and make a show out of grandstanding and pretend they are the victims, their bullshit is unending.
Nigger lovers. There's probably nigger cum in their ice cream. That's how they like it.
>>71452524
>dont care
Until they come for the protests you do like. Then what? There's something wrong here if you don't care if your constitution is stamped on just because it's a protest you don't like. Looking the other way?
>>71452661
How about not paying the $50 to begin with.
Ben (((Cohen))) and Jerry (((Greenfield)))
>Courts have interpreted the constitution so that it can be relaxed to allow governments to pass "reasonable" laws, even though they may violate an absolute constitutional principal. The First Amendment protects your right to peacefully assemble - within reason. You are restricted from protesting in certain places - you cannot do things like block traffic or put others at risk because of a protest (even if it is peaceful). I think governments can also require that you apply for a permit before a large-scale protest.
It's so reasonable you guys. I mean sure it violates just a few principles of the constitution, like the "peaceful assembly" part and the part, but by golly we need permits and fines. Protesters are just obnoxious!
>sarcsm by the way
Liberals want everything to be free but want to pay to protest.
Okay.
>>71453141
I watch the rise of the demon Pepe meme with interest.
You know what? Fuck it. Here's a reddit link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4fhfie/ben_cohen_and_jerry_greenfield_aka_ben_jerry/d28w3q3
You should be equally disgusted at all the comments here. But I warn you, this isn't a safe site for brave men. It's a site for cowards. Don't click if you're not a coward/liberal (sorry, I use those words interchangeably).
What it demonstrates is a serious lack of understanding of the constitution. I believe these opinions reflect a large sum of the population. Even seeing 500 votes next to someone literally defending arresting and fining protesters (while throwing in an opinion about how protester permits are a good thing) makes me want to kill myself.
>>71453459
I side with them
Look at what year it is. Protests have changed and they need to be analyzed more carefully. If you want to protest, perhaps don't disturb others with it. Especially if you live in a busy city. The world doesn't revolve around you.
>>71452007
Hey, if you don't like it just go and protest. I's only $50.
>>71453070
Is /pol/ ever fucking wrong? Jesus Christ.
>>71453695
They sell a large variety of ice cream, flavored with high fructose corn syrup, and barely counts as corn syrup. It's typical kike food marketing. You have to realize, and maybe /pol/ has already, that 90% of commercial food in this country is owned by kikes and poisoned by kikes.
>>71452982
>How about not paying the $50 to begin with.
That is ideal, but if it keeps me from being pepper sprayed, and all the fun that comes with dealing with riot police, then $50 is a drop in the bucket.
>>71453459
What's wrong with what they said?
How are all liberals cowards? Are you saying there are no liberals in foxholes?
You are only afraid of reddit because youre threatened by its growth
>>71454031
>That is ideal, but if it keeps me from being pepper sprayed, and all the fun that comes with dealing with riot police, then $50 is a drop in the bucket.
Well $50 is not the minimum fine given around the country, some are much larger. The problem is having these fines to begin with.
If a cowardly mentality (you) and the response you're giving "well who cares, it's just $50 and as long as I don't get pepper sprayed.." reflected the rest of the country, we'd be in a greater state of political apathy than we are now. The problem is that they are fining protesters.
>Well the protesting permit is just $25 at your local BMV and if it keeps me from being pepper sprayed, then it's just a drop in the bucket
An alternative thing you could've said, considering that's equally a problem. I'm sure you don't care about that either. What a true American
>>71454319
I'm a true American which is why I want police at protests
To protect other Americans
You jackass. And who's going to pay for all the protesters standing around occupying a spot of the city?
The $50
>>71453459
>my (soros) protests should disrupt other people's lives
Sorry, your rights end when they interfere with other people's.
>>71455037
And when people consider just the act of holding signs, being in a large group, and not having a "permit" is considered disruptive?
Have some coffee. You might need to sit down for this one: you don't agree with part of the constitution..
>>71455764
No, you do. You want people to protest wherever despite them breaking laws and disrupting other people's lives. End your life you pathetic soros shill.
>>71452007
Kike cherry icecream fairies
>>71454694
Does this seem like common sense to you? To fine people for protesting $50 because they are standing on a part of the city that someone else could be a part of?
Your statement wouldn't be a self-serving sack of lies and shit if those arrested were actually trying to hurt people.
>>71456172
>You want people to protest wherever despite them breaking laws and disrupting other people's lives
What laws and what disruption? If you are going to put these 300 protesters, who were fined and arrested, and clump them into a category that includes those who actually do set out to block highways and hurt people, then you're doing a disservice to many Americans. What's wrong with you? But I digress. You're literally telling me what you think I believe in so you can attack it, and you will continue to do so even after this post will you?
>>71455037
>Sorry, your rights end when they interfere with other people's.
You might see this as too much but then again you don't realize that you're literally dismissing the rights of protesters and justifying a $50 tax based on an increasingly watered description of what "disrupting" a protest is. And even more is that you are happy to step on the constitution if it's a protest you disagree with. I'm not standing up there with these people or BLM activists, but how could I turn around and say, "I defend your right to say this but I'm going to look the other way when your rights are abused"?
>>71456769
>Those arrested were charged with violating a D.C. statute prohibiting "crowding, obstructing, or incommoding," which are misdemeanors
Can you at least try to educate yourself before rehashing "Muh constitution"? Even free speech is regulated in america you complete dumbass. Also, until you stop saying "you don't know the constitution!" I will continue to assume you are a soros shill.
>>71457240
http://dccode.org/simple/sections/22-1307.html
Get fucked.
>>71452007
>two stoners
>eat ice cream when they have the munchies
>bemoan the standard of ice creams available
>think they can do better
>start their own ice cream company from scratch
>sell it for millions
It's the fucking American dream.
>>71457451
>>71457682
>crowding, obstructing, or incommoding
Yes, just like most protests. And even worse is that those being fined $50 can be fined simply for standing there in a group, because after all, they are technically "obstructing". This is what I'd consider watering down what a disruptive protest actually is. And your response is to tell me that "free speech is regulated", and thus to take the assumption that these people were all appropriately charged with these heinous crimes?
The premise of your argument seems to take things as they are, assume that these laws have been applied appropriately, and to attack anyone who hasn't normalized it. You're missing the issue if you do that.
>>71452007
Okay but why does anyone care actual fucking commie pinkos?
>>71457881
>applied inappropriately
>multiple pictures showing them blocking and crowding the entrance to the Capitol
>a public building
Shill more
>>71452524
>first they came for the Communist but i did not care for I wasn't a Communist
Etc etc etc
>>71458419
you can protest just fine if you actually bother to follow the law you ignorant retard.
>>71458734
>you can exercise your second amendment rights just fine if you follow all of the ATF laws restricting them
:^)
>>71458880
>there should be no laws regarding any of the rights
K so I can fire my gun off in the city at any time then? or advocate treason and attacks on the government? or perhaps write slander freely.
>lobertarians
>>71458880
>ATF laws
things that don't exist?
>>71458086
>In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . .
I mean for fuck's sake. I don't like their cause any more than anyone else here. Why should I be expected to look the other way if their rights are abused? People have done this enough with protests around America, and that's created enough of a precedent to further abuse our rights.
I'm afraid the future version of this thread will have someone adamant on protester permits, and going on as if it was a perfectly reasonable concept to have in this day and age. Yes, there are those who think it's a good idea.
>>71458281
It's good to know that some people think a march to a public building in this day and age is highly illegal and should be heavily fined. Sure, change has come out of that plenty of times, but this is 2016. Like, be civilized, you can't have [pic related].
I believe in discretion in this regard. It really must have to do with how disconnected you are. "Oh, that was back then, but this is now". Back then, we had leniency, but no more time for foolishness. If you're protesting, you can't be in the same spot for more than 5 minutes. You can't be loud, you have to be hush hush. If you march, you're arrested and fined (might as well). The law is the law, and thus is reasonable (a retarded thing to say but I'm inclined to think you find those two mutually exclusive).
>>71459170
>K so I can fire my gun off in the city at any time then? or advocate treason and attacks on the government? or perhaps write slander freely.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.
>or the right of the people to peaceably assemble
Your comparison isn't valid.
>>71459210
How's that importation of 7n6 going for you?
>>71459170
>fire my gun off in the city at any time
>advocate treason and attacks on the government
Do you think the constitution allows for this if it weren't for restrictions? Nonsense, and in the scope of a discussion on protests it's also a hilarious example.
>write slander freely
Depends on what you consider slander to be, but go right ahead. How restricted do you think your rights are?
>>71459528
You have yet to prove that they are applying the law inappropriately and are now arguing feels. There are pictures showing them blocking entrance to the capitol. This is what the law I just showed you prohibits. They have been shown trying to occupy the inside of the capitol and disrupt.
>>71457746
American meme?
Their ice cream is shit. Haagen Daz ftw
>>71459740
pls show me how the 2nd amendment prohibits me from firing my gun off in the city.
>completely ignores the treason part
>>71459850
>You have yet to prove that they are applying the law inappropriately
The law itself is inappropriate and a violation of the Constitution which is the highest law in the land.
>>71460222
>I'll just decide to use muh feels and say it's unconstitutional
Simply ebin
>>71460154
>completely ignores the treason part
>speaking out against a government working against the people and violating the Constitution is treason.
>not the government violating the Constitution
>2nd amendment prohibits me from firing my gun off in the city.
Where in the definition of keep and bear arms has to do with shooting your firearm in public space?
peaceful assembly shall not be abridged.
Laws against peaceful assembly are treasonous
>>71460307
>I cannot read.
>>71452007
They are locking the door behind them.
This is a very bad sign...
>>71460494
>>71460307
abridge Translate Button
[uh-brij]
verb (used with object), abridged, abridging.
1.
to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents:
to abridge a reference book.
2.
to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail:
to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
>>71459850
So the answer is yes, you would be happy if everyone was arrested on every nation-changing march we've had in this nation? I'd be happy if protesters were allowed to march to their government and speak out, that's the spirit of freedom. To enter the building, to cause damage, that's another matter. Discretion used to be used in the past.
One who believes "the law = the law = good" does not believe in discretion, neither does someone who doesn't understand what level of restriction actually exists on the first amendment.
>>71460154
>The Constitution allows for treason by default
I'll respond to that after I'm done eating this pretzel.
>pls show me how the 2nd amendment prohibits me from firing my gun off in the city.
Or firing your gun in the viscinity of people, or at a house. Are you saying the Constitution allows for this without gun restrictions? You could as well ask if the Constitution allows for murder without murder laws.
I'll go as far as to say someone shooting a gun all recklessly would be infringing on your rights.
>>71460449
where does it say I can't? what part of the 2nd amendment would get me put in jail for firing my gun inside the city?
>peaceful
>disrupting people from living their lives and doing their jobs
nope
>>71460841
>disrupting people from living their lives and doing their jobs
You sound identical to one of the soccer mom's in a /k/ thread about false police reports on people exercising their right to bear arms.
>>71460818
>I'll go as far as to say someone shooting a gun all recklessly would be infringing on your rights
>blocking streets and access to public buildings isn't
wat
>>71452859
They fucked that woman and made her boyfriend suck the cum out of her asshole.
>>71461254
>ad hom
>still has not shown me the part of the second amendment that restricts me from firing in the city
I can show you multiple state laws that do though :^)
>>71453437
It's watching back.
>>71460841
>Americans in charge of understanding their own constitution.
The constitution doesn't guarentee you rights by saying "you are allowed to do ______"
It guarantees you rights by saying "the government isn't allowed to do _______"
There is truly a fundamental difference and if you want to get a good idea of what that difference is, go read Germany's constitution.
>>71461563
>still has not shown me the part of the second amendment that restricts me from firing in the city
The second amendment States the right to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed.
Neither have to do with firing your firearm wherever you please.
In contrast the 1st amendment explicitly states the right to peacefully assemble shall not be abridged.
You're comparison isn't valid like I already told you
>>71454050
There are no atheists in a foxhole. So yeah, no liberals.
>>71461769
Yes, and laws restrict your usage of guns. Just like there are laws restricting certain types of protesting that disrupt other people's lives. Tell me why the law I posted about protesting hasn't been repealed if it's unconstitutional.
>gosh what if you inconvenience traffic during your civil disobedience? can't you just sit quietly in your free speech safe space over here?
And people must wonder why protesting never accomplishes anything.
>>71462221
>Yes, and laws restrict your usage of guns
Laws that restrict you right to keep and bear arms are all unconstitutional just as laws that restrict your right to assemble peacefully are all unconstitutional.
>Tell me why the law I posted about protesting hasn't been repealed if it's unconstitutional.
Tell me why the NFA 1968GCA Bush Sr's and Clinton's executive orders and various ATF "interpretations" of the law haven't been repealed?
News flash
The government is currently treasonous to a large degree and doesn't care if they're violating the law.
>>71460307
Yes, he's pro-constitution and "feels" shitty when people step over it and justify it.
>>71461563
You can't use the 2nd amendment to shoot a gun that infringes on the rights of others.
>>71462221
You are giving the implication that the constitution allows you to fire your gun willy-nilly if it weren't for these gun restrictions.
You don't seem to want to believe the government can ever do any injustice. All arrests are reasonable, everyone accused of a crime has done so, the law is the law thus it's good, and the constitution restricts you from writing the type of garbage your average 4channer posts while allowing you to fire guns into a crowded space. I don't know what the hell you think you're governed under right now.
>>71461256
Blocking streets and access to public buildings IS infringing on your rights, but lets not forget the marches in U.S. history that have led to change. At this point, if you wanted to cause any real change, you'd be actively breaking the law and risking a felony. This means marching to the capitol with a bunch of black people to talk against segregation, or to protest a war or to protest for veteran's rights.
It's the equivalent of the king sending a group away because they went too close to his castle, but in this case you're against just any protest in the vicinity of a public building.
The problem isn't what you're thinking, it's that you actually managed to normalize all this to where you have no issues with it.
>>71461659
>There is truly a fundamental difference and if you want to get a good idea of what that difference is, go read Germany's constitution.
I'm actually not surprised he sees it in this light. It's evident from his beliefs, isn't it? Someone who thinks like this surely believes rights are gifts from the government.
There are a lot of people like this as well, of course, and this disconnect does not help the political landscape. And an individual American thinking like this might as ell be labeled as a traitor.
