Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/10[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
This is a terribly divisive issue. On the one hand, there is that right of the public, enshrined in the US Constitution, that "Congress shall make no law respecting ....the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment, for those who are curious.) This "right" is restricted as follows: -- it applied originally only to the Federal government and not to the states. I believe that this Amendment is one which has been co-opted under the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the states as well, a dubious legal conclusion but binding for the nonce. -- the "people" must "peaceably" assemble and petition. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has stated, time and again, that local authorities may direct that protests and demonstrations only be held in certain areas, and the New York authorities designated such an area which the "protestors" immediately violated. Now, in the case of the Republican National Convention in New York City, the protestors were hardly "peacably assembled" -- one of them beat the crap out of a New York City police officer and put him in the hospital and many, if not most, refused to stay within the boundaries of the designated area for demonstrators. I am a product of the Sixties and have no problem with folks who choose to dress in alternate-lifestyle mode. However, given that the average US voter is a rather staid soul, I am troubled by just what these guys are attempting to accomplish, as most of those who see demonstrations by oddly dressed, oddly acting folks will certainly be encouraged to vote against whatever position these guys are taking. In the end, the issue is a non-starter. No one inclined to vote for Bush was swayed by these idiots .. er, "protestors".. to vote against him. I doubt that any of those undecided "fence-sitters" were swayed,. as well. The protests were a foolish exercize of energy by those who should properly be applying their energies to the good of the society or for their own personal advancement, such as working to earn money to be able to bathe. I am still confused why photographers wish to take pictures of such activities. The protests are of only margial interest, the protesors have been a banal factor for the past forty years, and there were far more interesting things going on -- I strrongly suspect that there were better pictures to be taken of assignations between delegates and the like, for those of you with a prurient mind. But,again, what sort of person would want to photograph a polical convention, much less a protest against a convention! Marc firstname.lastname@example.org FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!