Jason, thanks for having the moral courage to say that ANY government infringement of Constitutionally-protected speech is an outrage, regardless of content. I support any atheist's right to speak out against religion and assemble with like-minded folk, and I appreciate your willingness to afford me, as a Christian, the same rights. (And that's for the hat tip!) -- Geek Girl

Several things to note.

1) The Constitutional right to assembly and free speech only restricts Congress (i.e. the Government) from passing laws limiting these rights. The constitution does not protect the rights of anyone gathering, nor does it protect all speech. As citizens we do not have the right to assemble anywhere and to say anything. It is just not true.

2) Clearly the arrested group was there to protest the event and to disrupt the street fair. They were refused access (when they did not pay the admission fee) and the police asked them to leave. In fact the police acted in their own interest and tried to escort them safely.

3) The group repeated refused to listen to the police's requests and when they were arrested, they resisted.

Looks to me like their civil rights were not at all in peril whatsoever.

It's also worth noting the video omits preceding actions by the protesters that helped precipitate the arrests.

Several witnesses say Repent America attempted to shout down event speakers and commandeer the stage, as it has done at other public events.

Christians are barely allowed to HAVE opinions, let alone voice them. This doesn't surprise me at all, and that is sad.

It's all well and good for homosexuals to express their views and everyone accommodates them. After all, we're a tolerant and sensitive country that respects everyone from all walks of life. Except for those of the Christian faith. Christians are given a symbolic elbow jab before they even open their mouths, so it seems. Shush, you can't say things like that, it's not politically correct. WHO CARES?? This is America and if you can have your big gay cakewalk on city streets, then I can march right alongside you and try to convince you that you're wrong. As long as I don't lay a finger on you or threaten you with violence, then no harm, no foul.

Note that I am of the Christian faith and that I have several homosexual friends. Their lifestyle is their choice, and it has no bearing on the way I feel about them as people. I have Muslim friends, atheist friends, Buddhist friends, even Catholic friends. Who was it that said "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." The same consideration should be shown to Christians.

The right of the people to assemble freely at any time and place public place of their choosing is guaranteed by the laws of the United States.

The "street fair" DID NOT charge any form of admission whatsoever.

Any group restricting the movements of any other group is unlawful. I'm referring to the cordon formed around the group in the beginning of the video.

The ommissions in the video are certainly a question to be explored, BUT, what's shown in detail in the video is a violation of many rights of the protestors who were eventually arrested.

You simply can't tell a group of people to leave a public street. If they were obstructing traffic or some such then you can move them, if they resist, then you can arrest.

To determine that quoting the bible in public is "ethnic intimidation" is ridiculous. Also the charge of "inciting a riot" is also ridiculous. The bigotry and hatred was directed at the protestors. Not the other way around.

It's like arresting the lynched to protect the interest of the lynch mob.

I'm sorry but surrounding me on a public street for any reason is bound to get a violent reaction from me. I pay my dues in this society and if I want to walk down the street reading mein kampf or mao's red book I can. This was a public street, any group whatsoever had a right to be there and not be harrassed by the "pink angels".

I think some of these responses may be based upon the content of Repent Americas message rather than the issue of their rights to spread such a message being infringed by the "pink angels" and the police.

Jason Coleman

Jason, you are incorrect in your understanding of the constitution. There are no "laws" that allow anyone to assemble in any public place. The bill of rights in our constitution, however, makes a clear guarantee that the government will make no law restricting the right of assembly. Groups have the right to assemble, certainly, but not anywhere they wish. Or another way of looking at this is that the government cannot restrict the right of any group from meeting and expressing their views.

Federal, state, and local legislators can, and have, made laws restricting where and how this expression may take place. I may want to stand on the sidewalk outside your hosue with a bullhorn and shout nasty things at you at 2 a.m., but there are city rules and regulations restricting such things. The constitution guarantees my right to assemble--somewhere--and express myself, but not just in the way you imply in your comments here.

Another good bipartisan example is the Democratic National Convention or the Republican National Convention from this past summer. Protestors from both camps were restricted from assembling in front of either convention center. Why? For the safety of the protestors and the safety of the delegates and the safety of the general public. Protestors were moved and asked to keep their protests behind barricades. This is totally in keeping with the constitutional guarantees and does not violate anyone's civil rights, I hope you'll agree.

I hope you also will agree that the intent of the protestors in this case you mention here was to disrupt the street fair. Certainly, and I will agree with your point here, they have every right to assemble and speak their views, but--according to the police who acted to keep the event safe--not in the same place as the street fair.

Did you not see the police asking the protestors to move their protest? Did you not see the protestors refusing to comply and resisting arrest?

I am uncertain as to the rights of the Pink Angels here (perhaps they too should have been removed) but it does seem that they were acting in direct response to the protestors who sought to disrupt an otherwise peaceful street fair. Regardless, when in doubt, however, if you disobey the police then you suffer the consequences. The protestors went to jail because they disregarded the orders of the police department.

kind regards,
Matt

Jason, you are incorrect in your understanding of the constitution. There are no "laws" that allow anyone to assemble in any public place. The bill of rights in our constitution, however, makes a clear guarantee that the government will make no law restricting the right of assembly. Groups have the right to assemble, certainly, but not anywhere they wish. Or another way of looking at this is that the government cannot restrict the right of any group from meeting and expressing their views.

Federal, state, and local legislators can, and have, made laws restricting where and how this expression may take place. I may want to stand on the sidewalk outside your hosue with a bullhorn and shout nasty things at you at 2 a.m., but there are city rules and regulations restricting such things. The constitution guarantees my right to assemble--somewhere--and express myself, but not just in the way you imply in your comments here.

Another good bipartisan example is the Democratic National Convention or the Republican National Convention from this past summer. Protestors from both camps were restricted from assembling in front of either convention center. Why? For the safety of the protestors and the safety of the delegates and the safety of the general public. Protestors were moved and asked to keep their protests behind barricades. This is totally in keeping with the constitutional guarantees and does not violate anyone's civil rights, I hope you'll agree.

I hope you also will agree that the intent of the protestors in this case you mention here was to disrupt the street fair. Certainly, and I will agree with your point here, they have every right to assemble and speak their views, but--according to the police who acted to keep the event safe--not in the same place as the street fair.

Did you not see the police asking the protestors to move their protest? Did you not see the protestors refusing to comply and resisting arrest?

I am uncertain as to the rights of the Pink Angels here (perhaps they too should have been removed) but it does seem that they were acting in direct response to the protestors who sought to disrupt an otherwise peaceful street fair. Regardless, when in doubt, however, if you disobey the police then you suffer the consequences. The protestors went to jail because they disregarded the orders of the police department.

kind regards,
Matt

One follow up point. Here is the wording of the First Amendment of the Constitution:

"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."

The key phrase to note here is "Congress shall make no law". The emphasis is NOT on the individual's right to assemble anywhere and say anything. The framers of the constitution were *afraid* of the power of the government to make and enforce unfair laws and wanted to insure that the government could not create a law to restrict any individual or group from gathering and expressing themselves.

Hope this helps to clarify the constitutional question.

regards,
Matt

The right of any people - no matter the wording of their first Amendment or any other law - to assemble peaceably and even protest the actions of their government - is sacrosanct in any free society.

Unfortunately, the US is not a free society.

People get arrested for protesting both Bush and Kerry.

In rural Alabama, one might be likely to be arrested for protesting Chirstianity or for supporting homosexuality. Hell, we have a state congressman who even wants to burn books with pro-homosexual (and even pro-heterosexual) commentary.

Pennsylvania seems to be the opposite - but it is all the same. The right tries to supporess the left. The left tries to suppress the right.

We won't ever be free until we stop trying to impose our will, by force of law, onto others.

I choose the freedom to speak my own mind, and to ignore or protest others with whom I disagree. Won't the rest of you join in and quit trying to suppress the words of others - no matter what they are?

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us all." – Justice William O. Douglas

How do we as a people define "peacefully assemble" or how do we understand what "protesting government action" means? Who is allowed to define these terms and how does this play out in the day to day?

Our government cannot create laws to restrict our right to assembly, but it can create laws that affect *the shape* of that assembly or protest. The legal question is on one level a semantic one, but one with real consequence. The wording of the constitution is compellingly vague in this regard. Why does the first amendment not just say "citizens have the right to assemble anywhere, anytime, and say anything they want"? Because there are limits to all freedoms.

Laws have been created addressing how we might read the first amendment, and how we give shape to what "peacefully assemble" actually means as we live in the real world. Cities and towns have ordinances that further restrict the otherwise amorphous notion of public assembly. And when groups or individuals willing break these laws, police act to enforce them.

Free expression and right to assembly, without any monitoring or controls, ultimately promotes chaos and lawlessness. A free society understands these rights to be sacrosanct, yes, but allows for rule of law to monitor and adjudicate the shape of the expression.

This is the type of society I prefer to live in, where there is a balance between individual rights and rule of law.

Regards,
matt