Occupy Providence has the fringe-right all in a tizzy over an incident in which condoms were dropped on a anti-choice rally at the State House, spawning not one but two diaries calling for criminal charges to protect the religious right from the inconvenience of being confronted with opposing views. Here’s Justin nearly hyperventilating over a list of “possible charges” and the need to criminalize exercising one’s First Amendment rights:
11-45-1 Disorderly conduct. — (a) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: … (1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; … (3) Directs at another person in a public place offensive words which are likely to provoke a violent reaction on the part of the average person so addressed; … (5) Engages in conduct which obstructs or interferes physically with a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering
Clearly, there’s room to suggest that throwing objects during a political assault on such a gathering as the pro-life rally is illegal… unless, of course, the judiciary has effectively nullified these sections of the law or the AG’s office just wants pesky right-leaning bloggers to go away like the mainstream reporters do.
Among the other grievances was a “hair assault” on Rep. Costa. We can only hope the Representative gets the counseling she so desperately needs after her ordeal.
What’s funny is how different the fringe right views these protests depending on whether or not they agree with the sentiment. Who can forget the “disorderly conduct” of the religious right this past holiday season, who interrupted a children’s concert to protest it not being Christian enough. But don’t bother looking over at that other blog for the calls to have those folks arrested. Those laws only apply if they disagree with you.
Pick your battles, Russ. The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to throw things at people. In fact, this is very clearly a case of civil battery. You’re defending the right of people to throw condoms at schoolgirls – think about that for a moment.
Singing Christmas Carols v. throwing condoms at school children? Way to go Russ. I don’t remember you complaining when they dragged that whack job Chris Young out for holding up a sign. Like RTW said pick your battles. Some are lost before they start.
So you folks would argue that throwing candy or beads from a parade float is likewise battery? Or is it you are somehow offended by condoms, which can be found on the shelves at every pharmacy and minimart in plain view of school girls? Personally, I’m more offended by the pictures of aborted fetuses some folks think my kindergartner needs to see on a daily basis (on his way to Catholic school since that seems to matter to some). Should we charge them with assault as well? Since when is someone somewhere being offended the test for restriction on free speech? Yes, pick your battles.
Russ – As most of us who read Anchor Rising have already realized about you, somehow you have gotten to the point intellectually where you believe that anything your “side” says or does can be defended if only you argue cleverly enough. This is not the case. Your argument is based upon a deeply flawed analogy involving clearly distinguishable situations and has no legal basis supporting it. People who attend parades can reasonably expect that there will be small, celebratory objects thrown from the floats, such as light candy or confetti. Likewise, people who pack onto a crowded subway can expect some light pushing under those circumstances. This does not translate into other types of situations in which shoving would constitute a civil or criminal battery, and nobody who attends a political event at the state house can reasonably expect to have condoms thrown at or onto them, especially when children are present. Just admit that somebody on your “side” did something stupid, disavow it, and move on. It’s not a “free speech” issue and to present it as such only saps what credibility you have left.
does russ ever dig deeper into his conscience and think. ” maybe they should not have thrown or dropped the condoms?” “maybe they were wrong to do that”? ” maybe they should have expressed their concerns in a different venue at a different time.?” ” maybe they should not even have been there?”
and why would someone defend this type of action. as an american, i would just like one lib on this page to say respectfully, ” hey, what they did was wrong. it was poor judgement. i am sorry it offended people.”
maybe once a lib can do this.
here is your chance.
this also, speaks of the capacity of the oocupy prov leadership and members. why would a grown person do something like this in front of children. how can you be taken seriously on other issues when you do things like this. it was probably somebody just doing soemthing stupid and then trying to rationalize it. we all make mistakes. just admit it and move on. you get alot more respect that way.
like most things in RI, occupy prov seems to be at the bottom of the occupy heap.
Well, if I have a side in this one it’s the side that believes we need to protect free speech.
btw, note that Justin suggested these protesters should have been arrested simply for disrupting the event. I see no difference in that regard from the actions of those who participated in the holiday tree protest. I disagreed with them and yet didn’t call for their arrest for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
As for your point, it’s ridiculous to suggest that assault isn’t about intent to harm or a reasonable expectation that harm could result from one’s actions but rather is about whether or not someone was surprised. If that’s the case, I witnessed a confetti assault at a Harlem Globetrotters’ game.
If you like, I can concede that it was perhaps a dumb thing to do, but that’s hardly criminal.
Russ – Google “Torts Outline”, select any of the top 20 results, and skip to the section on battery. If you had only spent 5 minutes educating yourself on the relevant case law, then the world would have been spared another useless and rambling blog post.
You gotta be kidding, Russ. Throwing condoms is not free speech. If your argument is that throwing condoms is free speech, i’m not sure there is a place to begin a debate on free speech.
As someone who is pro-life, I believe in everyone’s right to assemble and publicly tell the world whatever is on their mind regardless of my agreement with them or not. Free speech, if it is a right, is not one in which I selectively fight for. Period.
Throwing condoms is not speech nor should it be a right. If I have to argue that point with you, there’s something seriously wrong with your view of speech.
“If you had only spent 5 minutes educating yourself on the relevant case law…”
Oh, please. You folks cry foul faster than a Brazillian striker inside the penalty box (hint – it’s more convincing when you bring out the stretcher). Let’s not forget the RI Attorney General and Capitol Police disagree with your hyperbolic interpretation of these laws as well.
As for protected speech, clearly this was done as a political statement, exactly what the 1st Amendment was intended to protect. Come on, Don.
See Expressive Conduct.
The Attorney General has declined to press criminal charges and that is within his discretion. I’m sure that he would not disagree with anything I’ve said here because it is only a basic explanation of civil battery case law (if he does disagree, then he shouldn’t be Attorney General). Throwing a condom at or onto somebody at a state house political event is civilly tortious conduct at the minimum, and the individual hit by the object would be able to recover if they brought a private cause of action, regardless of what the Attorney General decides to do. Not all “expressive conduct” is protected free speech, and it doesn’t matter if tortious conduct was done as a “political statement.” Please stop embarrassing yourself, Russ. To quote The Big Lebowski, you are out of your element.
JPC, sorry for the delay in approving the comment (still getting used to the new platform).
I think I’d answered that above… perhaps it was a dumb thing to do, but I support their right to do it.
I’m making a note of this for when I see a right-based group do something similar. I hope you come to their as you’ve done here.
That will show me your intent is to defend the 1st amendment and not just to take a potshot at a group that is not in agreement with your political views.
I’ll be watching.
“I’m making a note of this for when I see a right-based group do something similar. I hope you come to their [defense] as you’ve done here.”
Perhaps I will, but that’s hardly a fair test. The only reason I wrote about this was because that other blog was in such a froth over the incident, which I found hypocritical given their support for the disruptive protest at the holiday tree lighting. I did’t see eye-to-eye with those folks, but I also didn’t call for their arrest.
You can’t defend the indefensible.
Dogdiesel: You’re so right!
Not sure I would want to be the attorney making the case for “harm” caused by the battery of a thrown condom. Did the edge scrape someone’s cornea? Was it a used condom carrying some communicable disease?
“Assault” under Rhode Island law is physical act of threatening nature or offer of corporal injury which puts individual in reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury. R.I.Gen.Laws 1956, § 11-5-3. Bit of a stretch.
“Battery” under Rhode Island law is act that was intended to cause, and does cause, offensive contact with or unconsenting touching of or trauma upon body of another thereby generally resulting in consummation of assault. R.I.Gen.Laws 1956, § 11-5-3
Offensive Contact has a shot- but pick the jury well.
Bruce – The contact is clearly offensive. People have won cases in far less offensive and disturbing scenarios. I don’t think a jury would have a tough time finding for the plaintiff on this one, especially when they hear that children were in the crowd. To believe that this is “protected free speech” is to believe the absurdity that every time someone steps in a public space you have the Constitutionally protected right to pelt them with things as long as they are not physically harmed. Russ’s legal argument is total nonsense.
“I don’t think a jury would have a tough time finding for the plaintiff on this one, especially when they hear that children were in the crowd.”
What’s interesting here is how we’ve arrive at the underlying issue, the simple act of distributing condoms in a place where teens or children might see them is “offensvie” to some and therefore in their view should be illegal.
I can’t help but think how these folks would have arrested the Virginia Pep Band (wahoowa!) for, yes, throwing condoms at a parade that had children in the crowd (the infamous “rubber band” incident).
scs.student.virginia.edu/~pepband/explanation.html
no use trying to debate this with rc….closeminded, not open to others opinions, single vision of life…kinda sad….. \
just keep thinking that way and the next 40 years in ri will be a repeat of the last 40 years.
sayanara