Re-education?

[Drayno]

L.A. Times; Re-education on freedom of speech

Some Occupy L.A. protesters may get a lesson in free speech

Prosecutors say they can avoid court trials by paying $355 to a private company for an educational program. The irony is not lost on the anti-corporate activists, who see it as patronizing.

...

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So because they used their freedom of speech in a way "they" didn't like, the protesters get to be shown how to use their freedom of speech "appropriately"?

[rashore]

I'm not sure what the program is about.. Like, what is free speech, or how to use free speech without breaking city ordinances, or the differences between peaceful assembly and some of the less savory happenings that happen at protests? The article wasn't very clear on just what the protesters were supposed to be doing wrong, or what they were supposed to learn how to do right.

Shelling out to a private company for the program is a bucket of horse apples.

[Drayno]

So because they used their freedom of speech in a way "they" didn't like, the protesters get to be shown how to use their freedom of speech "appropriately"?

Re-education programs are the cornerstone of Totalitarian governments.

[Mr_Snstr]

So kind of like:

We're going to charge you with a questionable crime. Then if you want to get out of it; you can pay for a questionable program. If you don't you'll have to go to trail and may emerge with a record; which looks... questionable.

Now I have no doubt that some probably deserve to have been arrested and possibly charged. But are they really going to pursue a failure to disperse charge for hundreds of people? If you plead innocent the charges will most likely be dropped; as it's really not worth pursuing such petty charges.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Drayno]

So kind of like:

We're going to charge you with a questionable crime. Then if you want to get out of it; you can pay for a questionable program. If you don't you'll have to go to trail and may emerge with a record; which looks... questionable.

Now I have no doubt that some probably deserve to have been arrested and possibly charged. But are they really going to pursue a failure to disperse charge? If you plead innocent the charges will most likely be dropped; as it's really not worth pursuing such petty charges.

There is no doubt that some of those protestors deserve to get arrested, I will admit that.

But this is exceptionally messed up that it is even an option.

First it starts out as an option, and then it becomes mandatory.

[Mr_Snstr]

There is no doubt that some of those protestors deserve to get arrested, I will admit that.

But this is exceptionally messed up that it is even an option.

First it starts out as an option, and then it becomes mandatory.

I wonder what their maximum penalties are for allot of the lesser misdeamenors. Court fees and a small fine I would imagine.

You don't have to make it mandatory if it's troublesome enough to refuse. It becomes de facto mandatory then. "An offer you can't refuse."

I was in a somewhat similar situation once. With the choice of taking/paying for a class, or allowing it to go to trial. I let it go to trail and stood my ground, and the charges were dropped; no one wants to bother fighting you on the little stuff. Though it may be different in LA.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Drayno]

I wonder what their maximum penalties are for allot of the lesser misdeamenors. Court fees and a small fine I would imagine.

You don't have to make it mandatory if it's troublesome enough to refuse. It becomes de facto mandatory then. "An offer you can't refuse."

I was in a somewhat similar situation once. With the choice of taking/paying for a class, or allowing it to go to trial. I let it go to trail and stood my ground, and the charges were dropped; no one wants to bother fighting you on the little stuff. Though it may be different in LA.

The way I interpret all of this, is that our current speech is not enough; it's being terraformed.

Essentially, they are trying to dissuade these folk from protesting; dictating what rights they do have in terms of speech, expression, assembly, etc. I do fairly recognize that a non-violent or violent protestor may be apprehended in the context that he or she does break the law. If I was protesting, and I did break a law - like assaulting a police officer, I would submit and go into custody on the grounds that I would be protesting, but I would also respect the principles on which I would be protesting for; decency, sincerity, proper authorization and arrest on non-blatant, non-unlawful grounds.

Carter said the free-speech class will save the city money and teach protesters the nuances of the law.

"The 1st Amendment is not absolute," he said, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled government can regulate when, where and how free speech can be exercised.

I am not sure if he is trying to help the protestors cause; so that they may protest more efficiently, or if these classes will distort our founding father's interpretations. I surely hope for the former; the latter being an intentional misguidance. However, the sentence about the first amendment not being absolute - tell that to Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Jay. I understand the context that freedom of speech could potentially be limited; in the context of sedition - insomuch that speaking treason of your government is illegal. However, that paints a difficult picture if you rightly can speak treason of your government, on the grounds that the government has committed treason against you. In that case, the anti-sedition stance could be used by the government to imprison rightful dissenters on unfair and unlawful grounds.

However, I do not believe the government should have the ability to regulate when and where free speech is exercised. It would no longer, by definition, be free speech, but instead, more conceptually accurate, limited speech; endorsed by a particular setting - a setting prescribed by the government; which, in itself, demonstrates a level of oppressiveness.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Henry IV

[preacherman76]

Looks like the court needs a re-education program regarding the first amendment.

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.