Utopia Talk / Politics / Fascism In The Time Of Corona

Dakyron Member	Tue May 05 12:42:38 http://www...-mayor-and-police-commissioner "Protests will not be tolerated" Basically, the mayor of NYC and its police commissioner have decided to suspend the US Constitution and ban any and all protests for the foreseeable future. Because apparently mayors and police commissioners can now decide to suspend basic guaranteed rights via executive orders.
Rugian Member	Tue May 05 12:57:13 NYC is hardly the first place to do this, although it's probably the most prominent example. http://mob...ice/status/1250111779574894594
Rugian Member	Tue May 05 12:59:43 http://www...an-Francisco-defy-15240894.php
Paramount Member	Tue May 05 13:09:47 More proof that the USA is the bad guy, the way they treat their own citizens ^
Average Ameriacn Member	Tue May 05 13:18:46 I'm kissing and hugging my gun right now!
chuck Member	Tue May 05 14:52:32 Freedom of assembly can be restricted based on time, place, manner, and safety of the gathering. There's no absolute right to gather in front of a privately owned hospital during a pandemic, so I think "fascism!" is a bit of a kneejerk reaction. > About a dozen activists with the Reclaim Pride organization took to First Avenue in Manhattan outside the hospital to hold a news conference Sunday slamming Samaritan's Purse for being allowed to set up a field hospital. > Activists questioned how and why the organization was allowed to work in a city that supports LGBTQ rights. Right up there with 1980s era American Nazis on the "groups that elicit zero sympathy but who principle compels you to speak up for" spectrum I guess. The Samaritan's Purse thing did get some play in the news for a while. Normal human response, including I think among the vast majority of gay people: "it's ridiculous that this charity has rules about employing LGBTQ people. Imagine being that worried about your employees/volunteers sex lives. Whatever, it's not like they are unwilling to treat gay people, nice of them to help out." and then we all moved on with our lives. Wacko response: "That made me so mad. So mad that I'm going to go stand outside a hospital (because they "partnered" with the group) during a pandemic with twelve of my closest friends and hold a 'news conference'^H^H^H COMPLAIN ON TV because honestly, how dare they???" And of course those twelve assholes are the brush with which New York is now painted for Fox 10 Phoenix viewers. And the right has fodder for "See? We told you they were a buncha fascists!" Didn't watch the video of mayor speaking, just going from the quotes from him and the police commissioner in the article.
chuck Member	Tue May 05 15:02:27 It's a shame that the response from the left-wackos is being used as fodder for growing the ranks of the right-wackos though. This kind of shit is exactly why everybody thinks the other side are insane. 1. Twelve absolute morons do something in New York. 2. New York tells them to stop being morons. 3. Arizona is like "LOOK WHAT NEW YORK JUST DID!!!" --- Also, pet peeves from the article: > Activists [...] >>slammed<< Samaritan's Purse Fuck what clickbaiting has done to the English language. So many headlines and articles where "A slams B" and "C demolishes D," "E takes down F". Fuck you, write "A said X about B (on Twitter)." Nobody slammed anybody, you're just trying to make "people complaining about each other on the internet" sound a) exciting and b) effective, neither of which it actually is.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed May 06 06:21:22 "Nobody slammed anybody, you're just trying to make "people complaining about each other on the internet" sound a) exciting and b) effective, neither of which it actually is." Hear, hear!
Rugian Member	Wed May 06 09:53:53 This crisis has made it abundantly clear must how little respect a lot of public officials have for our basic rights: "[New Jersey Governor] Murphy: I wasn’t thinking of Bill of Rights when issuing pandemic orders" http://nj1...ce=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral Sorry, but the Bill of Rights doesnt simply go away during a crisis. Amazing that this has to be said.
Rugian Member	Wed May 06 10:07:12 Growing up we used to learn about the Sedition, Espionage, and Smith Acts, the Red Scares and the internment of the Japanese. We were taught about how all of these things happened or were passed during times of crisis, but how in retrospect they were overreaches of government authority that unreasonably infringed upon the rights of Americans. The implied message of such lessons was that we had learned from our mistakes of the past and now knew that you cant restrict peoples rights just because times are tough. Clearly that message was wrong. We have not actually improved at all as a country, rather we have reverted back to the same fearsome mentality that allowed for such tyrannical measures. It's really depressing if you think about it.
hood Member	Wed May 06 10:37:08 "Sorry, but the Bill of Rights doesnt simply go away during a crisis." Curiously, it does for certain crises. The current one is one of those crises. How many times do you need this explained before you internalize it?
Rugian Member	Wed May 06 11:01:00 Hood I disagree with your entire premise, so I dont know how to respond otherwise. I bet you were one of those people who supported the state seizing peoples' guns in the wake of Katrina too. Because "your freedumbs go away when the state says they need to," apparently.
Rugian Member	Wed May 06 11:01:44 Even in 2005 we knew that such power grabs were wrong. How have we fallen so far since then?
TJ Member	Wed May 06 11:29:23 Article One, Section 9, clause 2
Dakyron Member	Wed May 06 11:38:47 Right to assembly is a guaranteed constitutional right. A mayor doesn't even come close to having the authority to suspend the constitution due to a crisis. Governor possibly has that authority if the situation were dire enough, and the US President certainly does, again, if the situation were truly dire(enemy forces attacking the US in the United States mainland, for example). "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." COVID-19 does not satisfy the constitutional requirement for suspension, nor does it even come close. The police commissioner should be jailed if any attempt is made to arrest people for protesting.
jergul large member	Wed May 06 11:39:50 Ruggy I am sure there are worse mayors than the one in NYC, so you should obviously just rally behind his decisions. Stop being a loser that wants the Mayor of hicktown, Alabama to rule the US!
jergul large member	Wed May 06 11:41:29 And as to what the Constitution says. May or may not be relevant. Time to take a breath and wait a year or so as matters play out in the courts.
TJ Member	Wed May 06 12:11:21 No doubt, there will be plenty of court action. There is a reason why Covid-19 has been labeled a war. Social programming. Mayor's are exceeding authority unless the governor's approve. Silence is often acceptance.
Rugian Member	Wed May 06 12:15:30 Jergul Do you have any idea who de Blasio is? I'm not ruling him out of "worst mayor" status.
hood Member	Wed May 06 12:30:11 "I disagree with your entire premise, so I dont know how to respond otherwise." Acknowledgement of the fact that it is, indeed, entirely legal to temporarily restrict basic rights as necessary to handle a health crisis would be a great start. "Right to assembly is a guaranteed constitutional right." And rights can be restricted under certain circumstances. Public health crisis is one of those. "I bet you were one of those people who supported the state seizing peoples' guns in the wake of Katrina too." Seizing guns affects one's ability to deal with the natural disaster effects of a hurricane in any way. So, no, that's redonkeyless. Forbidding public assembly to prevent transmission of a deadly virus during the middle of said virus' outbreak, however, is not ridiculous in any way whatsoever. It's literally the prescribed treatment for limiting the effectiveness of the virus. I am willing to compromise, however. If any such assemblers are willing to bear full legal responsibility for any spread of contagion, all the way up to murder charges and jail time should their actions lead to any string of infections that kills someone (and all legal ramifications of any such infection, even if it doesn't kill anyone), then sure. They can assemble. The death penalty is in play for biological terrorism, right?
hood Member	Wed May 06 12:31:03 "Seizing guns ***doesn't*** affects one's ability to deal with the natural disaster effects of a hurricane in any way." Whoops.
Dakyron Member	Wed May 06 12:32:03 "And rights can be restricted under certain circumstances. Public health crisis is one of those." No, you cannot arrest someone for exercising their constitutional right to assembly unless it is a time of rebellion/invasion. The constitution does not give any other acceptable reason.
hood Member	Wed May 06 12:38:01 The constitution is not the entire sum of laws within the US. Stop being a retard.
Dakyron Member	Wed May 06 12:51:59 Sure, a governor could potentially suspend state laws in a time of crisis, but a mayor cannot suspend the constitution based on a pandemic or any other short-sighted shit, which you, know, was the BASIS OF THE THREAD fucktard.
hood Member	Wed May 06 13:11:37 Now you're arguing in circles. Yes, everything that is happening is perfectly legal. You can suspend rights and you can arrest people for breaking quarantine. The mayor didn't order the quarantine, the governor did. The mayor is simply enforcing the quarantine with perfectly legal actions, including a fine and jail time up to 1 year.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 06 13:30:00 This is why we can’t have nice things, because people are retarded. I realize I have underestimated how much retardation our civilization has sheltered.
TJ Member	Wed May 06 13:40:50 It is going to take innumerable tweaking, Nim. :D
Forwyn Member	Wed May 06 14:02:49 "You can suspend rights and you can arrest people for breaking quarantine." Got any precedent on that? Quarantine enforcement has historically been aimed at the ill, and inbound travelers, not healthy people watching the sunset in their cars, or listening to a sermon in the parking lot.
Habebe Member	Wed May 06 14:11:10 We should just round up the undesirables and concentrate them , into camps perhaps so that we could cleanse them. Idk getting bored of this lockdown, might start a cult, any takers?
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed May 06 14:24:26 Remember when Dakyron was shitting himself inside out in fear of this virus?
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed May 06 14:25:48 Or was that the other D guy? It could have been. It's hard to keep everyone moron on this board straight sometimes. Sorry if I confused them.
hood Member	Wed May 06 15:41:29 "Got any precedent on that?" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/271 "Any person who violates any regulation prescribed under sections 264 to 266 of this title, or any provision of section 269 of this title or any regulation prescribed thereunder, or who enters or departs from the limits of any quarantine station, ground, or anchorage in disregard of quarantine rules and regulations or without permission of the quarantine officer in charge, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both." I'm not suggesting a full year in jail is reasonable for the random quarantine break. But protestors aren't random quarantine breaks. They're a special kind of idiot.
Dukhat Member	Thu May 07 02:47:47 Another Wedge issue for Republicans to use for people like Dakyron who hold absolutionist views on the world.
jergul large member	Thu May 07 03:50:51 Ruggy The founding fathers favoured containing epidemics.
Dakyron Member	Thu May 07 10:43:40 We are not talking about quarantine. Quarantine is when you isolate a sick person. That is 100% legal and justifiable. We are talking about banning public assembly of healthy people out of fear of spreading a sickness. That is unconstitutional and cannot be enacted by the local authorities. "I'm not suggesting a full year in jail is reasonable for the random quarantine break. But protestors aren't random quarantine breaks. They're a special kind of idiot. " An actual sick person purposefully breaking quarantine should be shot. "Another Wedge issue for Republicans to use for people like Dakyron who hold absolutionist views on the world. " I'm not a republic, you mouth breathing inbred meth addled fuck.
hood Member	Thu May 07 11:01:26 "That is unconstitutional and cannot be enacted by the local authorities." It is not unconstitutional and it was enacted by the governor. "An actual sick person purposefully breaking quarantine should be shot." And people who might be sick but don't know it? That's what you're advocating for.
Dakyron Member	Thu May 07 11:07:46 "It is not unconstitutional and it was enacted by the governor. " Because you say so? Thank god that you don't speak the entire United States. "And people who might be sick but don't know it? That's what you're advocating for. " I'm not advocating for anything. Those stupid fucks should stay home. I'm just saying it is unconstitutional to arrest people for peacefully assembling in protest of government action unless there is an actual war/rebellion going on.
Paramount Member	Thu May 07 11:24:17 ”We are talking about banning public assembly of healthy people out of fear of spreading a sickness. That is unconstitutional and cannot be enacted by the local authorities. ” Can’t they enact a curfew? I mean if it is a curfew then it is a curfew and you must stay at home, but if you go out you’ll be arrested.
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 11:49:26 It's not actually banning healthy people it just ends up being that because we don't know who is healthy and whon isn't coupled with super easy spread of the disease. So its a grey area. I think if we definitively knew who was and was not sick it would not have been as restrictive, so perhaps testing can set us free.
Dakyron Member	Thu May 07 12:12:36 "It's not actually banning healthy people it just ends up being that because we don't know who is healthy and whon isn't coupled with super easy spread of the disease. So its a grey area. " It is absolutely not a gray area. It is spelled out in the US Constitution that you cannot arrest people for peacefully protesting unless in times of war/rebellion. "I think if we definitively knew who was and was not sick it would not have been as restrictive, so perhaps testing can set us free. " I think requiring testing prior to protesting would be the gray area you were referring to.
hood Member	Thu May 07 12:34:46 "It is spelled out in the US Constitution that you cannot arrest people for peacefully protesting unless in times of war/rebellion." And the constitution is not the whole extent of the law. I've already linked the relevant law that allows up to $1000 in fines and 1 year in jail for breach of quarantine. "Because you say so?" Because a law was passed? The only person who is "saying so" here is you. "Waaaaaaaaaaah constitution" isn't a valid argument. You actually need to say something besides "CONSTITUTION!" Like, for instance, a later law has specifically spelled out incarceration for breach of quarantine. And yes, the stay at home orders are a form of quarantine.
Nekran Member	Thu May 07 12:37:36 "It is absolutely not a gray area. It is spelled out in the US Constitution that you cannot arrest people for peacefully protesting unless in times of war/rebellion." A horribly stupid flaw in the constitution, considering the US is technically still at war with North Korea. And often engaged in silly wars that have nothing to do with your homeland. So yeah... no problem then, I suppose?
Paramount Member	Thu May 07 12:48:56 You could always move to Sweden. We don’t ban freedom here.
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 13:28:37 D akyron, Ok but lets look at the reasoning and intent of those laws regarding war. The intent of not letting people gather was because of a potential loss of life and undo harm to the public in general, this disease can cause similar damages. I understand we need to strike a balance to reintergrate and that some orders may over reach with out actually saving lives.
Dakyron Member	Thu May 07 14:18:10 "And the constitution is not the whole extent of the law. I've already linked the relevant law that allows up to $1000 in fines and 1 year in jail for breach of quarantine. " How fucking stupid are you? The US Constitution is the highest law of the land. They teach that in jr high social studies, or did you not get that far in school? "Because a law was passed? The only person who is "saying so" here is you. "Waaaaaaaaaaah constitution" isn't a valid argument. You actually need to say something besides "CONSTITUTION!" Like, for instance, a later law has specifically spelled out incarceration for breach of quarantine. " See above response before rethinking your choices in life. "And yes, the stay at home orders are a form of quarantine. " No. Quarantine is a popular term for the stay-at-home orders, but they are actually quite different. "You could always move to Sweden. We don’t ban freedom here. " It is very cold there. "A horribly stupid flaw in the constitution, considering the US is technically still at war with North Korea. And often engaged in silly wars that have nothing to do with your homeland. " Not a declared state of war. Only US congress can declare war. All those "silly wars" are technically not wars at all. "D akyron, Ok but lets look at the reasoning and intent of those laws regarding war. The intent of not letting people gather was because of a potential loss of life and undo harm to the public in general, this disease can cause similar damages. " Umm... no. "I understand we need to strike a balance to reintergrate and that some orders may over reach with out actually saving lives. " If you wish to propose an amendment to the constitution that allows local authorities to detain people for assembling whenever a disaster declaration is in force, then go ahead. That is something that most Americans would vehemently oppose.
hood Member	Thu May 07 14:23:16 "The US Constitution is the highest law of the land." And what in the constitution makes it impossible to suspend right of assembly? This quote from you?: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas Corpus != right to assembly or arrest.
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 14:28:43 To emphasize something from hoods post to go back to my argument about intent. "the public Safety may require it."
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 14:33:18 I mean, if the people were masked and sufficiently spaced apart I dont think it would be a problem....the likelihood of that is not high though.
Dakyron Member	Thu May 07 14:36:41 hood - You should probably do some research before continuing.
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 14:39:59 Considering that habeas corpus is due process/ right of trial.
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 14:41:12 Being a Criminal I aint pass the bar but I know a lil bit.
Dakyron Member	Thu May 07 14:52:49 Mayor issues order saying you have to stay at home. People gather to protest this order. Police arrest them. You are being unlawfully arrested, since assembling is a protected constitutional right. This violates the writ of habeas corpus, which prohibits, among other things, randomly arresting a person who is not and has not committed a crime.
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 14:58:06 Here is the issue with that. The constitution does not explicitly protect the right to assemble, the SCOTUS has stated that the 1st amendment protects the right to peacefully assemble/protest but also that it is not an absolute. This is not being done for shits and giggles. There is a very real and dangerous life threatening disease spreading which most of us would like to keep mitigated to a manageable level.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu May 07 15:00:20 "You are being unlawfully arrested, since assembling is a protected constitutional right. " allow me to help you. There is also the right to free speech in that text, how is that possible for americans to be sued for, lets say, libel? Obscenity?
Dakyron Member	Thu May 07 15:01:35 "The constitution does not explicitly protect the right to assemble" The very first amendment, you stupid fuck: "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. " Pay special attention to this line: "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" Right there: "right of the people peaceably to assemble" See it? "assemble"
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 15:04:40 Which is not ABSOLUTE. As deemed by the scotus.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu May 07 15:05:13 habebe gets it
hood Member	Thu May 07 15:10:48 "Mayor issues order saying you have to stay at home." Governor issues order. So you're already wrong. "You are being unlawfully arrested" No, there was a valid order to stay home (unless necessary, for things like buying food). "assembling is a protected constitutional right." And rights can be temporarily suspended pending valid circumstances. A pandemic is one such valid circumstance. "This violates the writ of habeas corpus, which prohibits, among other things, randomly arresting a person who is not and has not committed a crime." Actually, habeas corpus allows for a method to challenge an arrest perceived to be unlawful. Additionally, habeas corpus is not instant (speedy != instant). So you're 100% wrong.
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 15:36:26 "And rights can be temporarily suspended pending valid circumstances. A pandemic is one such valid circumstance." Yes, also we have a right to beat arms, but it is a right that gets suspended while we are inside a courthouse. Im actually agreeing with Hood. These are special circumstances. Now i understand where your coming from in stating we need a new amendment to make it legal to suspend this right. I am merely stating that the SC has actually ruled on relatable circumstances stating that such is not the case. Now if these protesters did some sort of protest that did not include gathering in mass with close proximity than no problem. I support there right to protest BUT not to the extent that are knowingly putting others in jeopardy of undo harm. You can walk around swinging your arms all you want, until you hit someone, then it becomes a problem.
Dakyron Member	Thu May 07 16:07:20 "And rights can be temporarily suspended pending valid circumstances. A pandemic is one such valid circumstance. " https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php " Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are me" No alternative time was given, nor alternative place. It was a blanket "you cannot assemble" order issued by a fascist local mayor. It is clearly unconstitutional. "No, there was a valid order to stay home (unless necessary, for things like buying food). " The order itself is not lawful, so violating it is not unlawful. If a police officer told you that you had to snort cocaine, for example, that order would not be lawful and you could not be arrested for defying the order. "Actually, habeas corpus allows for a method to challenge an arrest perceived to be unlawful. Additionally, habeas corpus is not instant (speedy != instant). " Among other things, yes. But it has broader ramifications in modern day.
hood Member	Thu May 07 17:12:11 Cherry picking specific sentences out of your source may work for people who don't follow links. The full text of what you cited doesn't actually require an alternate time or place, just that they are available: "The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”[6]" Such alternate options are available in plenty. You're using one of them, the internet and the restriction was not referencing content of regulated speech. "The order itself is not lawful" Said no legal scholar ever. The government is well within its rights to restrict travel in a health crisis.
Dakyron Member	Thu May 07 17:19:57 "Such alternate options are available in plenty. You're using one of them, the internet and the restriction was not referencing content of regulated speech. " Wait, so you believe that it is OK to ban public protests because they could express themselves on the internet? This is the holy grail of stupid.
Habebe Member	Thu May 07 19:02:31 Ok bottom line, there are special temporary circumstances that make things like gathering hordes of people could lead to a bunch of bad shit such as death, overwhelming our medical institutions etc. In the mean time we are working under TEMPORARY rules that will help prevent bad shit, we apologize for any inconvenience.... I suppose we will just disagree.
hood Member	Thu May 07 19:20:57 The holy grail of stupid is interpreting an example as the example. Almost as retarded as thinking that the mayor of new york was the one who issued the stay at home order.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 08 02:32:49 I just wonder at what case fatality rate would people stop talking about what is and isn’t in the constitution? My guess is never. Dakyron, Rugian and Pillz would be here coughing up pieces of lung, *COUGH* muh *COUGH* muh constitution! So China can start experimenting with virii now, they will pull no punches to shut down and westerners are apparently too fucking stupid to do the right thing unless it is in a constitution written by people who had no idea what a virus was. The systems collapse is inevitable.
jergul large member	Fri May 08 03:43:54 Nimi They did however have a clear understanding of what Yellow Fever was. The Constitution provides leeway for epidemic control. I don't think our forum Constitutional Scholars have taken much away from the age of reason, so tend to read the constitution as scripture - even when we all know it is quite maleable in times of crisis.
Habebe Member	Fri May 08 06:07:02 Jergul, But not Germ theory.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 08 08:00:46 Jergul Probably, I am just taking it all at face value. Because we obviously can not think and understand the obvious practicalities of life, unless some guy with a beard and funny clothing wrote it down a long long time ago in an context farway. Very Abrahamic.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: