Bloomberg killed the 1st Amendment

HandyHamlet said:

WTF?

So you admit the arrested reporters may have actually been doing nothing wrong when they were arrested? And that their arrests, resulting from Bloomberg's direct order to black out the media, are in fact nothing more than contempt of cop charges and against the 1st amendment?

Click to expand...

No. And wishful-thinking wont get you around the reality of things, anyway.

Simple: If they were or werent credentialed reporters-either way, if the wrong place to which they werent granted an access for whatever reason, and as a result are charged with tresspass-that's on them. That's not (somehow) destroying any amendment whatsoever. That's just them not getting their way, and them whining about it like little children. Be it for this, or any issue.
I dont feel that just because someone has, or claims to have, some sort of "press creds" grants them any kind of special access to anything that isnt granted to them by whatever authority, just because they want it to be so.

End story.

I edited my post as you replied. But it doesn't matter.

You will never support the 1st Amendment. Because your kool aid drinking has programmed you to equate the 1st with smelly hippies. You refuse to believe your freedom and 2A rights are forever locked with your 1A rights. So, thanks for proving my point.

Evil - 2

Constitution - 1


WOOF WOOF!

HandyHamlet said:

I edited my post as you replied. But it doesn't matter.

You will never support the 1st Amendment. Because your kool aid drinking has programmed you to equate the 1st with smelly hippies. You refuse to believe your freedom and 2A rights are forever locked with your 1A rights. So, thanks for proving my point.

Evil - 2

Constitution - 1


WOOF WOOF!

Click to expand...

The rest of you- and "mods" forgive me ahead of time- my tolerance for the ignorant and the dense is miniscule, at the best of times.
So, here's the Special Ed version for our less-gifted audience:
1) John Q. Reporter (self-claimed, but lacking any valid documentation thereto) goes to Point A in an attempt to "report" on -take yer pick of whatever.

2) Point A, however, is declared-for whatever the reason may be/by whomever's place it is to make such declaration- to be "off limits" and is , by means of fence, gate, locks, doors, whatever-secured of access.
3) John Q. "Reporter" decides to break said fence, gate, locks, doors, whatever, and enter the place anyway- feeling that his "credentials" however valid, or invalid- grant him the "right" to violate the secured -access, private property of another.

4) John gets caught, arrested, and charged for tresspass due to #3, above.

This is not a violation of any amendment whatsoever, regardless of whatever silly reasons John took it upon himself to commit the action.
One has nothing to do with the other. Being told-DONT GO THERE- and going there, anyway- and then getting caught doing so, isnt in any way violating anyone's 1st amendment. There is nothing whatsoever preventing John from "reporting" on whatever from a different position where it's otherwise perfectly legal to do so.
HOW is that difficult to grasp, exactly?

WOOF WOOF

That's a lot of mental masturbation there. But your fantasy of how things went down has no baring on reality.

At a press conference, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said police barred the media from covering the raid...

Click to expand...

Last time I checked, tyrants can't supersede the Constitution. That's kind of why those old dudes wrote it. It's kind of cool. You might want to check it out one day.

And lastly, thanks for proving my point again. All you sheeple calling for "press credentials" to exercise the 1st are the same who lament permission slips for exercising the 2nd.



baaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

No again. And twisting what's said, and even what isnt said, to try to fit into your agenda/tantrum doesnt in any way validate it at all.
In fact, it renders it null.

Re-read the above, slowly, without singling out the one or two words that fit your agenda.-I said repeatedly "whatever the case/issue".

Any yahoo can go print himself up a "press cred" and "claim" to be a "freelance" reporter. It does'nt make them one. Nor, does it give them some special access to anyplace at all over that of any other citizen. THAT is the only point.

By the same token, any yahoo can go print himself up a permission slip to carry in whatever place requires it by their local laws. Does that make the carrier legit-in the laws of that place?-Does it create any more rights for that carrier than any other person who wants to carry legally,but for whatever reason doesnt have the permission slip? No.
Does that mean I agree with it? Not at all. But that's what it is, and there are penalties that I'd fully expect to face-like it or not- if I were to violate it.
Not liking the laws doesnt make them any less valid, or any less enforecable. Not liking those who point that out, doesnt make them supporters of same.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says a permit or credentials are needed by any citizen, regardless of profession, to exercise their 1st Amendment Right.

Hint: The 1st Amendment is printed above. I have it in bold face since it will be unrecognized for what it is by some.

j4l said:

No again. And twisting what's said, and even what isnt said, to try to fit into your agenda/tantrum doesnt in any way validate it at all.
In fact, it renders it null.

Re-read the above, slowly, without singling out the one or two words that fit your agenda.-I said repeatedly "whatever the case/issue".

Any yahoo can go print himself up a "press cred" and "claim" to be a "freelance" reporter. It does'nt make them one. Nor, does it give them some special access to anyplace at all over that of any other citizen. THAT is the only point.

By the same token, any yahoo can go print himself up a permission slip to carry in whatever place requires it by their local laws. Does that make the carrier legit-in the laws of that place?-Does it create any more rights for that carrier than any other person who wants to carry legally,but for whatever reason doesnt have the permission slip? No.
Does that mean I agree with it? Not at all. But that's what it is, and there are penalties that I'd fully expect to face-like it or not- if I were to violate it.
Not liking the laws doesnt make them any less valid, or any less enforecable. Not liking those who point that out, doesnt make them supporters of same.

Click to expand...

You fully expect to face penalties and consider them enforceable if they directly contradict the constitution?


With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Read again, without the bias and the blinders.
You are completely missing the clear point.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

From the source posted by the OP to begin with- their own words, not mine:

"As the Associated Press and others reported, there’s no doubt that these personnel – and others – were in fact trespassing. There’s no question that protesters sliced open a chain link fence and tried to take over private property."

Let's repeat that for the less-than-brilliant= "There’s no question that protesters sliced open a chain link fence and tried to take over private property."

How is that less than clear? How is that in any way a violation of anyone's "1st amendment" to enforce tresspass against anyone's private property being violated? How do any of those dolts do so, then complain about getting caught for doing so, and then turn around, and with a straight face- actually try to cry "1ST AMENDMENT!!!!!!!" ??????????

PUHLEEEEEEZ EXPLAIN THAT...

j4l said:

...

Click to expand...

Well, first of all you are talking about protesters. Protesters cut a fence. Not journalists. But two from the list were arrested while covering that story.

So what's your point again? In light of the fact that Bloomberg has already admitted he superseded the Constitution by ordering a media black out... We have the absurd excuses he and his flunky gave.

They don't deny it. Only you do.

So, when sombody wants to fly off the handle and go on a killing spree they can claim that shooting sombody else is covered by the First Amendment? After all, if you really want to make a statement you sign it in blood?

I think not.

No right can be had at the expense of other people or at the expense of other people's rights. If it costs sombody else it is not a right. Like I posted elsewhere, we are all "at arm's length". Being at arm's length is what a free society is all about.

I'm sorry, but your post makes absolutely no sense.

The topic is:

Bloomberg is a treasonous enemy of the Constitution and the proof is his admitted media blackout.
And his flunky's almost retarded justification email for violating the 1st Amendment and Civil Rights of Journalists.
And the actual contempt of cop arrests and accounts of said journalists.

With a little extra whipped cream on the side by making fun of supposed patriots. Patriots who's kool aid indoctrination prohibits them from saying "The 1st Amendment" without causing an uncontrollable facial tick accompanied by the word "goddamnedleftyliberal" to hiss out from between clenched teeth. Like a snake.

Please see second quote in signature.

Didn't you just claim that going through a fence was all cool for journalists, as long as the journalist didn't cut the fence?

No Sir. This thing is on and people all over the world can read what I type.


At least I think so.


Hello? Hello? Can you see this?

Oh we see it quiet clearly.
Sadly, it's nothing new. Leftist-hippie-wannabes have been shouting it for years- "Violate laws and the rights of others -as long as your doing so for some cause of the month, other- then cry foul/conspiracy/tyranny when you get nailed for it"
We get it. Really we do.
Doesnt justify it in any way ,shape , or form, but we get it. It's called childish reverse-logic.

When mommy tells Johnny he cant have a cookie right now- despite his constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness- she's now listed as a Tyrant in his mind, and he's justified in throwing the tantrum he's about to have.... same concept, same mentality.

Tell us how you really feel about the 1st Amendment "sheep dog".

HandyHamlet, I mostly enjoy your sense of humor, but not this time. Do I have to get out the big crayon?

What part of "no right can be had at the expense of others" do you not understand?Or are you just some mall ninja iching for civil war?

Sorry, don't know where you are coming from.

I honestly don't see how Bloomberg and the actions of his paramilitary against the 1st Amendment have anything to do with your comment. I have no idea how reporters doing their jobs, and citizens engaging in news gathering in any way tramples the rights of anything or anyone. Since what they do IS the 1st Right. But you have got me thinking. Maybe that's why all the chest thumping kool aide drinkers hate it so. Because it is first and the 2nd isn't. Jealous perhaps?

And with respect, I don't think you know what the term "mall ninja" means. Since it is obvious from my posts I am the exact opposite (the Gunkata thing is a bit). Rest assured I have no inclination to relive the War of Southern Aggression. (even though I'm not sure where you are going with that either)

Nice to meet you. Hope we can meet in person at a gathering.

"I honestly don't see how Bloomberg and the actions of his paramilitary against the 1st Amendment have anything to do with your comment."

Its does'nt.
And it cant.
Real, bloody simple reason why:
He's just a Mayor.
In NYC for Christ's sake.
He cant prevent media coverage of much of anything that's happening in the streets short of shutting down the entire city.
Ever been to NYC? ever even visited? It's not even remotely possible to prevent any number of reporters, or citizens for that matter, from picking any one of the hundereds of tall buildings surrounding any of the events in the streets, and viewing the goings-on from a thousand possible vantage-points. And reporting to whoever/whatever they please (ty, internet)
A vantage point that would provide said reporters with a bird's eye view they will never get at ground-level in the thick of the chaos.
Hence, no one's rights/amendments are violated in the least.
If some douchebag reporter is too dense to think to maybe find another vantage point to view things from (and avoid the possibility of arrest and/or a gassing) without having to break into someone's private property-then tough **** for them.

j4l said:

....

Click to expand...

For the thousandth time.

Bloomberg already admitted he blacked out the media. He closed airspace to news choppers. Twice. His flunky admits they illegal arrested journalists with his retarded email.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bloo...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Your post is irrelevant. Your opinion has been noted 1000 times.

You hate the Constitution. You hate your freedoms it ensures. You hate the fact that people use cameras.

Got it. Got it. Got it.

NOVEMBER 16, 2011 5:34PM
Media Blackout and why Bloomberg should Step Down

The justification had worn thin before the story was even widely known. When asked why members of the media had been blocked from the scene of last night’s eviction of Occupy Wall Street, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed he had acted to “protect the members of the press. We have to provide protection and we have done exactly that.”


The airspace over lower Manhattan had been shut down by the city to insure against news helicopters providing aerial coverage of the incursion. One CBS copter which had previously been in the air was denied refueling and held on the tarmac. Accredited members of the press were kept blocks not yards from the occupation. Views of the camp from neighboring streets were blocked by strategically placed police vans and city vehicles. In effect the mayor of New York made an orchestrated attempt to blindfold the American people.

http://open.salon.com/blog/dan_omahony/2011/11/16/media_blackout_and_why_bloomberg_should_step_down

Click to expand...

HandyHamlet said:

For the thousandth time.

Bloomberg already admitted he blacked out the media. He closed airspace to news choppers. Twice. His flunky admits they illegal arrested journalists with his retarded email.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bloo...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Your post is irrelevant. Your opinion has been noted 1000 times.

You hate the Constitution. You hate your freedoms it ensures. You hate the fact that people use cameras.

Got it. Got it. Got it.

Click to expand...

Maybe he did, maybe he didnt. If he did, guess what? The reporters have a story about it, and he can get some bad press as a result-possibly ending his career as Mayor. And?
And, for that matter, says who? some Yahoo on his blog? That's actually a main source you cite? Really? A FNG BLOG?
Are you bloody kidding me?

Do you not find it the least bit curious that CBS itself, makes no mention whatsoever that it's news helo was denied flight or the ability to report on the occupation? Really? http://www.cbsnews.com/

Would'nt you think that CBS would be all over that? The Communist Broadcasting Service should be having a field day with that, if that were a story in itself. If you were the head of a major,network news company-dont you think you'd be stomping your feet and ranting about this for any and all to hear?

Let's run another scenario by you, since you seem to think journalists have some particular 1A right to access to anything/anywhere/anyone at all times, otherwise they are being ,somehow, trampled or whatever.
If an accredited reporter for XYZ news, or even you or me as a free-lancer, went to the White House right now, and demanded access to the President, or hell we'll even aim way lower, the Chief of Staff for Biden, do you think for a minute we'd be granted that access-just because we wanted it?
If we were denied this access, and attempted to end-run security/police/SS to gain that access, do you think that maybe a tresspassing charge would be the least of our concerns?
If we were denied this access, would we have any right or reason, at all to claim our 1A rights were being somehow denied?

And all this aside, what IS there even to report? That a bunch of spoiled-rotten yahoos are throwing a tantrum in the streets like some 3rd-world peasant over...whatever? Yes, we already know about them- they've made their "point" whatever that might have been, and guess what? Theyre still yahoos making fools of themselves-good for them.