Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:15:41 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple
References: <B7WcnT_drY_sm-_7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v51j7g$2kkd7$3@dont-email.me> <atropos-2D68A3.09340520062024@news.giganews.com> <v51v78$2n6c1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Message-ID: <1oucnSidyL1gBun7nZ2dnZfqn_UAAAAA@giganews.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:15:41 +0000
Lines: 84
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EstwIYM5LjkjZxtxZXUrboYl3q2Nnj84SJ3JkX4cFOuEuLe05+FVp2hxvRJAhQipxkaT/z6WB2330NV!OGCCK5f4Pf/B+7/HRATu7DJJQJCM9M9QggfXNimiej1Nir9Xkr8LMPrC6+JMvXoPP3fSArngm+In
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4997
X-Original-Lines: 81

On Jun 20, 2024 at 12:16:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/2024 12:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>  In article <v51j7g$2kkd7$3@dont-email.me>,
>>    moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>  
>>>  On 6/19/2024 7:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>  In article <v4vgil$258cf$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>     moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  On 6/19/2024 3:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>  In article <v4v8ug$23o16$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>      moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  On 6/19/2024 12:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>  In article <v4uvta$21spc$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>       moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  On 6/18/2024 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  In article <v4t2ai$1imbc$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>        "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>  ST. LOUIS (AP) - A judge has expunged the misdemeanor convictions
>>>>>>>>>>>>  of a St. Louis couple who waved guns at racial injustice protesters
>>>>>>>>>>>>  outside their mansion in 2020. Now they want their guns back.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  I had no idea that four years later, this still hadn't happened.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  It was a gated community, which are all over St. Louis. They were
>>>>>>>>>>>  trespassing.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  Apparently 'trespassing' is a meaningless term when you're doing it
>>>>>>>>>>  for
>>>>>>>>>>  'social justice'.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  Don't you even *pretend* there's a built-in tug-of-war between
>>>>>>>>>  "trespassing" and "peaceable assembly"?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  Maybe in a public place like a university quad, but not in a private
>>>>>>>>  residential neighborhood.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  Under the presumption that each point of view must give some ground
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  Why would you presume that?
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Why would you presume I presume it, especially after I've explicitly
>>>>>  labeled it a 'presumption'?
>>>> 
>>>>  If you're not presuming it and I'm not presuming it and the courts
>>>>  hearing the case in St. Louis didn't presume it, what was your point in
>>>>  bringing it up here?
>>>> 
>>>>>>>  I'd say that the protesters' rights depend on history, geometry, etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  I'd say (and I'd be right) that no protester has rights to come onto my
>>>>>>  private property at all. I'm the only one who gets to decide who's
>>>>>>  allowed and who isn't. It's pretty much in the definition.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  So, e.g., we can suspend the right of peaceable assembly by temporarily
>>>>>  transferring public property rights to some private party...
>>>> 
>>>>  What does such a fanciful scenario have to do with what's under
>>>>  discussion here? St. Louis didn't temporarily sell a public
>>>>  street/neighborhood to the residents of the neighborhood for purposes of
>>>>  thwarting the BLM protest. That neighborhood had always been private
>>>>  property, including the streets, since it was built decades ago.
>>> 
>>>  The 'fanciful scenario' illustrates that (as usual) absolutist positions
>>>  on non-mathematical issues are untenable.  To afford protesters *and*
>>>  property owners meaningful rights, something's eventually gotta give.
>>  
>>  Protesters have NO rights on other people's private property. Nothing
>>  has to give there.
> 
> Why do you think protesters need an explicit Constitutional right to 
> protest, if not because of conflict with other "rights"?

There is no conflict with private property rights in the 1st Amendment's right
of assembly. It's simply not contemplated that it would even be a question
that strangers have a right to trespass on your property so long as they're
'protesting'.