"David Allen" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
>
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news
[email protected]...
> > >
>
> > > There never was an agreement to allow any protests, friendly or
> otherwise.
> >
> > This depends on your POV. From the church's perspective, the easement
> they
> > negotiated (they thought) would bar all the protesters. From the
public's
> POV,
> > they only gave up a public street because they thought the Church would
> allow
> > them to continue to use the area. Naturally a number of folks were hot
> under
> > the collar when they discovered the Church's easement and all it's dress
> code and
> > other such restrictions.
> >
>
> I think the public's point of view was split. There are just as many
> members of the public, Mormon and non-Morman alike, who are fed up with
the
> hecklers.
>
> The behavior rules and dress code aren't onerous. They're respectful,
just
> like if you were to enter the grounds of any religious establishment. The
> only people hot under the collar are those who already have an ax to
grind.
>
> > > agreement when unfriendlies showed up. The problem has always been
> hecklers
> > > bothering people people going about their business within a few yards
of
> the
> > > temple entrance.
> > >
> >
> > The problem is that you (and obviously the Church) regards hecklers
> bothering people
> > as a problem. Or in other words, the attitude of the Church that
> protesting against
> > the Church is a problem.
> >
>
> Protest isn't the problem. It's where they protest (or heckle). The
church
> respects peoples right to protest, but it's reasonable for the church to
not
> want the protesting right there in that area close to where visitors and
> temple goers are.
>
No, it isn't reasonable, as long as the protestors are sticking to
protesting
the organization, and not making personal attacks. There is no point to
protesting an organization if your not able to be near it.
It's like the stupid (in my city) anti-war protestors that were running
around
blocking traffic on the city streets during the Iraq war. None of these
morons
were within even 10,000 feet of a military recruting station, nor were they
even
near the Federal courthouse or any other major government building. Instead
they were down in the oldtown area which is one of these "retail botique"
areas, and they weren't even confining themselves to the sidewalks. To me
that isn't protesting, it's a bunch of street kids using the pretext of
protesting
to bother people who had nothing whatsover to do with the war in Iraq, just
for the sake of being able to be an asshole to people.
>
> I agree. But even with protest, one can't protest anywhere. There isn't
an
> unlimited right to protest.
>
There is on publically owned land.
> Also, I'll disagree on a lesser point. I don't think protesting against
an
> individual is a privacy issue. Right to privacy is a limit on government
> from encroaching on an individual's privacy rights. Harrassment is an
issue
> for local police to deal with, not the feds.
>
Yes, now it is because of the Constitution authors deciding that. But I
wasn't
talking current law, I was pointing out that this is one of the glaring
problems
with the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights
for example should never have been separated from the original Constitution,
it
should have been written right into the Constitution.
The Constitution was written during a period that people felt there was
unlimited
land, if you didn't like your neighbors, you could just leave and
go to new territory. As a result they did not envision what would happen
when
the land ran out, and how crowding people together
into cities would eat into personal rights. This was after all a nation of
farmers.
If the Founding Fathers had any inkling of the kinds of technological spying
and
privacy violations that can occur today between individuals, they would have
probably changed the preamble to include personal privacy among the other
listings dealing with promoting the general welfare, etc.
