FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Norwegian police enforces tradition of leaving people alone. (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Norwegian police enforces tradition of leaving people alone.
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Aftenposten reports - only in Norwegian, sorry, so I won't link it - that two men were fined for preaching to the crowds on May 17th. More accurately, they were asked

a) To stop using their megaphone, which they did.
b) Later, in a different place, to stop preaching and leave the area, as several people had complained that they would like to enjoy the parade in peace. This they refused to do, and the police eventually arrested them; they were fined for disturbing the peace, and a court has now upheld it.

I'm glad to see Norway upholding its fine tradition of religion in private, where nobody else has to see you making a fool of yourself. Let's hope other American evangelists take note.

Youtube has a video of the incident.

For those who don't konw, May 17th is the rough equivalent of July 4th; it's the day our Constitution was signed.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm glad to see Norway upholding its fine tradition of religion in private
The tradition is more accurately phrased as "using the coercive power of the state to force others to keep religion private."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Was the content the issue or the fact that they were being loud?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Since we can't see the article, I'm relying on KoM's account of it. He specifically celebrates this as upholding a tradition of "religion in private." So according to him, it was content based.

This seems to be supported by the fact that they complied with the request to stop using the megaphone. We have no indication of the volume in the second incident other than KoM's opinion on it.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
The court states that they believe the police explanation, which is that the preachers were removed for being a disturbance, not for the content of their speech.

Reading between the lines, it seems possible to me that if the preachers had not been removed from the scene, the crowd might have taken matters into its own hands, and the police acted to prevent a fight from breaking out.

quote:
The tradition is more accurately phrased as "using the coercive power of the state to force others to keep religion private."
And quite rightly so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Are Norwegian people accustomed to using violence against people with ideas that they don't like?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Are Norwegian people accustomed to using violence against people with ideas that they don't like?

I don't think it was the ideas that were the problem, it was the pacing behind them and loudly droning on. The people had assembled for a specific activity and were being distracted and annoyed by a completely unrelated activity. I don't know what the criteria for "disturbing the peace" is, but if a drunk staggering down the sidewalk screaming obscenities counts, this probably should too.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I'll translate the most relevant parts of the article, referring to a film shown to the court of the incident - it may be the same one Youtube has, I'm not sure.

quote:

Some [in the crowd] show no reaction to the two men's shouts, while others feel it is the wrong time and place for Christian evangelising.

A little further up on Slottsplassen the men are contacted by a police patrol and asked to leave the location, partly because they do not have the necessary permit to use a megaphone.

The officer explained to the court that he asked them to go elsewhere because many people were reacting negatively to the Christian message on megaphone right in front of the children's parade on Constitution Day. Several people felt their behaviour was provocative and insulting.

The two men left [Slottsplassen] and put down their megaphone in a hotel room. An hour later they were found in the intersection of Kongens gate and Karl Johan [not very far from Slottsplassen, maybe five minutes' walk] where they are again engaged in preaching. Several passersby object to their behaviour, and contact a police patrol. Otherwise they would take the matter into their own hands. After some discussion the preachers are asked [by the police] to leave, which they refuse to do. "In accordance with freedom of speech, we have the right to stand here", they said. After further discussions, where the request to leave was repeated several times, the police arrested them. They were each given a fine, which they refused to accept, and the case thus ended in court.

The court upheld the fines, 10500 kroner or roughly 2100 dollars each, plus court costs of 1500 kroner each.

quote:

Oslo [tingrett, local court? Not sure of the English] holds that the police were within their rights to remove the preachers by force, after their multiple refusal to move when requested. The court gives weight to the police's belief that the situation was a threat to order, which gave them the right to intervene, without violating the European Human Rights [treaty, court rulings]. The judgement states

It is clear that the right to free speech is a highly important principle. After EMK [the relevant international treaty] there is nonetheless an option to [damn this legalese] reduce this right to the extent that a democratic society requires it from concern for public safety and to protect public order. The court believes that the case is distinguished by the place and time of the defendants' demonstration, to wit, May 17th and Karl Johan while the children's parade was passing. The defendants were not willing to cease their demonstration in spite of repeated police orders, and the police feared that the situation would escalate. We assume that the intervention did not have the intention of hindering religious speech, but of maintaining order.


Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Are Norwegian people accustomed to using violence against people with ideas that they don't like?

Nothing to do with the ideas in question. But we do rather strongly dislike being shouted at, especially by foreigners who have apparently come in on our national holiday for the specific purpose of disturbing the celebration.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
I'll translate the most relevant parts of the article, referring to a film shown to the court of the incident - it may be the same one Youtube has, I'm not sure.

quote:
We assume that the intervention did not have the intention of hindering religious speech, but of maintaining order.

If that is the case, I don't have any problem with it. Nor do I see why the fact that the content of their message was religious should matter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Sounds like they were being a genuine public nuisance. If this consistently happened to religious people and not others, it'd indicate a policy of forcing religion to stay in private...by itself, this event looks like it's just an enforcement of somewhat strict rules about disturbing the peace.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Sigh. Why are you meanies spoiling my fun? Can't a man enjoy the sight of his native oppressive police state cracking down on people he dislikes?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puffy Treat
Member
Member # 7210

 - posted      Profile for Puffy Treat           Edit/Delete Post 
Laws against disturbing the peace I'm all for. Laws that single out religious people while ignoring others, not so much.

Glad this seems to be the former.

Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think that "keeping religion private" was quite the goal here.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
I sometimes wish we had more strict laws on disturbing the peace here.

For instance, the teenagers who like to yell obscenities at each other and the passing cars in the park where small children are playing? I wish they would be fined. But we don't even have cops patrolling around here to tell them to move along. If you call in an emergency it takes the cops at least 20 minutes to get here; if you call in a non-emergency, it's more like 1-2 hours.

Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
I know what you mean, kq. Groups of large, scary-looking, but polite men can come in handy for such situations. Admittedly this isn't always an available solution.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
The "threat to order" was that people in the crowd - not the shouters - would commit violence. That doesn't sound like something to celebrate about one's country.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
On the contrary, I think my countrymen are quite right to

a) Insist on their right to enjoy their celebration without being shouted at.
b) Prefer to let the police handle it, but
c) nevertheless be willing to stand up for their rights by force if necessary.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure it would have played out any differently in the United States.

Disturbing the peace -- check.
Refusal to obey a lawful order -- check.
Trespassing -- check.

Ending with an arrest and a court appearance in which the defendants cite freedom of speech seems likely.

Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see where the trespassing comes in - these are all public streets.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
At least in Cook County, refusal to leave a public area when a police officer asks you to leave is criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post 
I see. Local laws probably vary on that. Where I work, it is not uncommon for people to trespass by refusing to leave when asked, and the police are called -- so this scenario plays out -- but of course the business is private property.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
At least in Cook County, refusal to leave a public area when a police officer asks you to leave is criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.

Not an expert, but I think this is not true in Norway. The difference seems to be purely in the formality of what the offense is called, though - the effect is the same.

Generally Norway does not have as much protection for private land as English-descended legal systems do; for example, everyone has the right to pass through uncultivated land, and even cultivated land if it is frozen over, regardless of who owns it. I think that would be trespass in England.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
On the contrary, I think my countrymen are quite right to

a) Insist on their right to enjoy their celebration without being shouted at.
b) Prefer to let the police handle it, but
c) nevertheless be willing to stand up for their rights by force if necessary.

What would suggest as a fair use of force in this case? Where are the limits?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
What the police used: Remove the offender from the area, using restraint holds where necessary.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post 
I still don't understand your religious angle. You seem to have made a point to mention that they were preaching and for US evangelicals to take note.

Is it just that you don't like religious people? Or that you don't like public religious people?

I know that Norway is a fairly godless place - lots of non-believers.

Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
What the police used: Remove the offender from the area, using restraint holds where necessary.

No I mean, say the police weren't able to respond to the situation for whatever reason. You said the citizens should be able to use force if necessary. Would you be in favor of the citizens restraining and removing the men from the area? Bodily harm? What if the men refused to leave and said they would violently defend themselves if forced to move? What are the generalities of this situation?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
The U.S. is pretty good at arresting people for demonstrating without a permit. Political demonstrators count on that.

quote:
At least in Cook County, refusal to leave a public area when a police officer asks you to leave is criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.
So public property isn't public? How'd that happen?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The U.S. is pretty good at arresting people for demonstrating without a permit. Political demonstrators count on that.
In general, though, that won't apply to a couple of people street-preaching.

quote:
quote:
At least in Cook County, refusal to leave a public area when a police officer asks you to leave is criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.
So public property isn't public? How'd that happen?
If you're interested in the law surrounding "move on" orders, here's a BYU Law Review article on the subject.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
I have always hated "disturbing the peace" charges. Or at least since no policemen ever came around to the road construction crews to arrest them.

If this happened in the US, there would be the obvious first amendment issue. "Disturbing the peace" is shroud that disguises the reality: "disturbing the people in charge". That's how things like pornography are unprotected by the first amendment. Yes, there's the knee-jerk response of believers and unbelievers; the former immediately thinking "persecution of the church!" and the latter thinking "finally someone shuts 'em up." I don't know whether this is okay with the Norwegian constitution, but if their court says so, I'll just have to accept what happened. But this does not appear to have broken out on the verge of violence, and "disturbing the peace" in this instance sounds like "telling everyone what they don't want to hear," so I think telling these guys to leave in the first place is morally wrong, regardless of whether my morals are biased by my faith.

It's more lawful to arrest a baby for crying during a fireworks display in the US, if only because the first amendment protects religion and says nothing about crying babies, and preaching and crying are equally disturbing to the peace.

I think there is nothing that can make religion more dangerous than the idea that everyone ought to keep their religion private. If nobody says anything, ideas far dumber than those floating around right now will invade a much larger percent of the population, and nobody will be able to learn from the experiences and revelations of their peers. How can anyone reach an understanding of another if they can't even discuss their beliefs?

Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
In Norway there is a right not to be shouted at. I like having such a right.

quote:
"Disturbing the peace" is shroud that disguises the reality: "disturbing the people in charge".
You will note that the police did not get involved until there had been complaints by the crowd.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In Norway there is a right not to be shouted at. I like having such a right.
Was the crowd watching the parade silent? My guess is that there was a lot of cheering going on, probably quite a bit that reached the noise level of shouting.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, I won't say they were as quiet as your average moonlit, snow-filled meadow on midnight during a hard winter. But I've stood in American crowds, and I've stood in Norwegian crowds, and there is a vast difference in the noise level. There is a strong social inhibition in Norway against shouting or making loud noises in public, which in general is broken only by drunken teenagers and at football matches. Indeed, I'm always asking my wife why she is shouting when were are sitting right next to each other, and of course she doesn't perceive herself to be shouting at all; it's just that her normal tone of voice is several dB higher than I consider comfortable for ordinary conversation. And indeed this is true of most Americans: You people are seriously loud.

Also, if you take a look at the YouTube video, I think you'll find that the crowd isn't saying much. (It's been a while since I saw it, and I'm at work and can't check, so I could be wrong on this.)

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
As an American who's visited Norway, I can confirm the quietness and general reservedness of Norwegians. They really just like to be left alone and forced interaction with another person has an air of awkwardness about it that I haven't seen in the states. If you bump into a Norweigan, you're almost better off not excusing yourself as that merely extends and exacerbates what is already an uncomfortable situation.

An interesting contrast is company parties where everyone gets totally sloshed and goes nuts.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
I think what happened was good.

If someone was preaching loudly (at a children's parade!) threatening me, essentially, with violence and hatred via "God's will", I would most certainly complain to the police.

I would expect the police to ask them to leave at least twice, and then escort them away. If they refused I would be happy with them being fined.

And yes, if they wouldn't leave, I would be furiously angry. Angry enough to consider confronting them and asking them to leave myself.

The fact that street preaching/noise is apparently not a cultural phenomenon in Norway simply makes it even worse.

You have to understand what it's like to be threatened with violence upon your person whether it's directly or indirectly through the threat of violence via "God's will". It pretty well sucks, as you might expect it would. To have your children with in earshot of these type of people who think nothing of other people's views, I can't imagine.

Hear the woman in the second video. "Why have you come today?," she asks. She is distressed that the preachers have chosen to ruin the day.

Religion is not a free pass to generally be a huge jackass. There are other people in the world. Your religion may request that you threaten other people with anger, violence and death or else (whether it's under the guise of love or not), but that doesn't mean that the law will or should allow you to do so, especially in a situation like the one in the video.

I find it ludicrous that these people post the video expecting to be regarded as martyrs.

I'm afraid that I agree with King of Men. What happened was the right thing to happen. No violence was committed against them. They were asked to leave by several citizens who were clearly upset, and by very polite police. And then they were removed and fined.

Fair's fair.

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
As long as people stop acting self-righteously about how much better their countries are with respect to civil liberties, I don't particularly care. There's been a lot of that lately, with no acknowledgment at all that what's really happening is that some countries are balancing competing rights differently.

***

It should also be noted that KoM originally praised this not for stopping a disturbance but because it stopped public expression of a particular idea.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, if he was referring to this particular idea (violence, guised in religion) then I agree, although I prefer the idea of it being held under disturbing the peace, to allow for citizens requesting the removal of the offender, rather than a law that specifically attempts the impossible task of summing up the offense.

I don't particularly think that all street preaching (the nicer kind) should be subject to this treatment. Hence the above. If it's not horrible or disruptive, go ahead. If it's horrible or disruptive, the police should be able to intervene, just as they would anywhere else.

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Teshi, if the offenders had behave the same way over some other idea - a political idea, wanting to sell something, begging, whatever, do you think that the situation should have been different?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
King of Men are you declining to answer my questions?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Missed your second post. I would have the citizens take the preachers by the arm and gently lead them away; if they resist, apply as much force as necessary to subdue them, up to strangleholds if required. Beyond that, call for police backup.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Missed your second post. I would have the citizens take the preachers by the arm and gently lead them away; if they resist, apply as much force as necessary to subdue them, up to strangleholds if required. Beyond that, call for police backup.

ah, I see. I suppose it seems to me that this procedure has too much allowance for abuse.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Teshi, if the offenders had behave the same way over some other idea - a political idea, wanting to sell something, begging, whatever, do you think that the situation should have been different?
Naturally. Anyone threating violence, directly or indirectly (If you do not vote for such-and-such, you will die a terrible, terrible death) should be removed from the street, if she or he will not go willingly. I would also be willing to see a slightly less but still abusive preacher, on any subject (social, political, religious) be asked to move on.

There is a difference between a rally or protest, here such abusive yelling is expected- even allowed-, and in a situation where it is entirely out of place. This was not a rally.

I do think that we make more allowances for this kind of religious preaching than for other street preaching of a similar vein. Only Fred Phelps in America is offensive enough to raise almost everyone's eyebrows. I appreciate that kind of freedom of speech and toleration is one of the accomplishments that America is proud of, but that doesn't mean that every country has to take the same path.

Perhaps Phelps' appearance at funerals is in fact a more extreme example of what happened in Norway. Americans are used to this kind of street preaching, since they have far worse. Norwegians presumably aren't. Their reaction suggests that even the religious don't appreciate their presence on that particular day, saying what they're saying. I can't really say for sure, but it may be that to a Norwegian, this kind of preaching may be as shocking and horrible as Fred Phelps at soldiers' funerals is to most Americans.

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Was the crowd watching the parade silent? My guess is that there was a lot of cheering going on, probably quite a bit that reached the noise level of shouting.
More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.

I'm usually referring to billboards, bumper stickers, and anything else that might have something on it that I don't feel I should have to explain to my children if I'm driving in a car with them. There was a time when nobody would've considered putting billboards up on I-95 advertising strip clubs, because it would have violated some kind of decency law. Today it's covered by the 1st amendment. I don't believe the founders had anything like that in mind.

As to the thread topic, these people came to a parade with a bullhorn, to divert the crowd's attention from the parade to their own agenda. I think the 1st makes it clear that (in the U.S.) the police can't operate under any motivation that restricts their right to exercise their religion. But when the dictates of their religion (proselytizing) interferes with the religious freedom of others, the police can protect the religious freedom of others by telling them (the proselytizers) to keep it to themselves or move on. (which is an example of why move on orders make sense, but I oppose the idea that a police officer can issue a move on order on a whim. I do believe in a "right to remain" unless there is some kind of "probable cause" or equivalent.)

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joldo
Member
Member # 6991

 - posted      Profile for Joldo   Email Joldo         Edit/Delete Post 
How long until a GodHatesNorway site goes up . . .
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.
Why is that more to the point? Unless you're going to ban all expressive activity not part of the official parade, why does the fact that they were proselytizing matter?

quote:
As to the thread topic, these people came to a parade with a bullhorn, to divert the crowd's attention from the parade to their own agenda.
The bullhorn prohibition is an example of "time-place-manner" restriction, which is by its nature a content-neutral restriction.

The actual arrest was not about a bullhorn, though. More importantly for the thread topic, the arrest was celebrated based on the content it suppressed. The reason I keep harping on this, by the way, is that the thread starter has a habit of unapologetically advocating violent, totalitarian repression of religion and religious people. He might think it's cute, but I don't. It's clear why he posted this incident - he admitted it was to indulge his police state desires.

It sounds like you want to be able to suppress religious speech based on its content here in America, if I'm interpreting this correctly:

quote:
More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.

I'm usually referring to billboards, bumper stickers, and anything else that might have something on it that I don't feel I should have to explain to my children if I'm driving in a car with them. There was a time when nobody would've considered putting billboards up on I-95 advertising strip clubs, because it would have violated some kind of decency law. Today it's covered by the 1st amendment. I don't believe the founders had anything like that in mind.

It's not entirely clear to me - and I welcome your clarification either way - but it seems as if you're saying that proselytizing is one of those things that you don't feel you should have to explain to my children if I you're driving in a car with them. If so, it further seems you are advocating removing proselytizing from the protection of the First Amendment.

quote:
But when the dictates of their religion (proselytizing) interferes with the religious freedom of others, the police can protect the religious freedom of others by telling them (the proselytizers) to keep it to themselves or move on.
If you're referring to time-place-manner restrictions to which content is not relevant, I agree with you to an extent. However, if you are singling our proselytizing over some other forms of persuasive speech, I find this very disturbing.

Luckily, current jurisprudence wouldn't allow what you might or not be advocating here.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is a difference between a rally or protest,
Why is it allowed simply because a bunch of people decide to yell abusively at the same time and the same place?

quote:
Their reaction suggests that even the religious don't appreciate their presence on that particular day, saying what they're saying.
Letting the mob determine what content can be expressed is a frightening thought. And that's what you're advocating here.

Also, calling preaching about hell a "threat of violence" is a serious stretch.

[ July 10, 2008, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why is it allowed simply because a bunch of people decide to yell abusive things at the same time and the same place?
Without comment on the American situation, there are reasonably stringent limits on the level of abuse tolerated in a demonstration in Norway; demonstrations also require permits.

quote:
Also, calling preaching about hell a "threat of violence" is a serious stretch.
If you do not do [X], then [Bad Thing Y] will happen to you through the agency of [Z]. In what way is this not a threat?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why is it allowed simply because a bunch of people decide to yell abusively at the same time and the same place?
See: The House of Commons.

I think that because we feel that freedom of speech is necessary to a healthy society, we designate specific times and places where particularly powerful/angry speech can and should take place. Like, forgive me for the comparison, strip clubs are a designated are where people can watch strippers.

As for the threats, what King of Men said.

"Oh yes, people, Judgment is coming. And God is very angry with the wicked so you must examine yourself and see if you are in the faith. Are you in the faith?"

When questioned, he doesn't mention this. He says, "I'm here to celebrate with you... I'm here to celebrate the new birth of Christ..." There's some of this rhetoric later, which I don't mind as much as the threatening kind, but of course I still find obnoxious.

The policeman doesn't even mention the rhetoric in detail. He says, "We have to show respect. That's why there isn't other [protesters around here]."

Also, telling people you came to convert their King. Come on, guys. What do you expect? Basically they're just being huge jackasses.

[ July 10, 2008, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you do not do [X], then [Bad Thing Y] will happen to you through the agency of [Z]. In what way is this not a threat?
So someone advocating a measles vaccine is threatening their audience?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
Put yourself, if you will, in other people's shoes. You are an atheist or one of the Christians shown here like the lady who tries quietly to say 'God is good'. You are here with your kids to celebrate your country, which does not normally contain public religion, although a number of people are- clearly- Christians.

Some dude is walking behind you, with a huge sign and a loud voice (even without the horn), proclaiming that you and your children are wicked, and will face the wrath of God and judgment for your "sin" of not believing in a very particular kind of Achillean God whose main way of dealing with people is fury and anger and threats of bloodshed and violence, via the very people behind you.

Your kids are looking at you, concerned. You are exchanging looks with the people around you. The protesters are not moving on, but staying behind you, still going on about how you and your children will burn in hell. It's pretty horrible. You feel threatened, and targeted, because you know the guy is trying to get at you. the guy's jovial tone clashes creepily with his words. The parade begins but all you can see is the guy behind you, going on and on.

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2