Below is my column in the New York Post on the complaints of Jewish groups that they were denied permits to march in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention while other groups, including pro-Palestinian groups, were allowed to do so. There is a crushing irony in Chicago given the decision in 1978 to allow Nazis to march in nearby Skokie, but Jews could not march in Chicago in 2024.
Here is the column:
This week, citizens will gather in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention to voice their support for Israel and protest the abuses of Hamas.
However, this largely Jewish gathering will not be marching. Instead, they will gather on a small private lot blocks away from the convention as thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters march through the streets.
The reason is that Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson has refused to grant their request for a permit.
While pro-Palestinian protesters have been given an array of accommodations by the city (and received a shoutout from President Joe Biden in his convention address), the Jewish protesters are only able to gather due to the donation of a private lot by an owner for their use.
Even as pro-Palestinian protesters veered off approved routes and tore down security fencing, it will be the Jewish protesters who will reportedly remain confined to this private lot under the watchful eye of the Chicago Police Department.
Besides pro-Palestinian protesters, pro-abortion protesters have been allowed to march, and Planned Parenthood is celebrating the nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris with free abortions.
So Jewish protesters get to watch as favored groups parade in abortion pill outfits, but they cannot march with the images of the Hamas hostages in Gaza.
Josh Weiner, co-founder of Chicago Jewish Alliance, confirmed that the group was not granted permits, so all they could do is walk around such approved protests to “make our presence felt.”
He added that “pro-Palestine protesters have gotten multiple permits, including a march, which seems to be a little bit weighted on one side.”
For Chicagoans like myself, the treatment of the pro-Israel protesters at the DNC could not be more ironic or disturbing.
Forty-six years ago, Nazis were allowed to march through Skokie, Illinois, despite the presence of thousands of Holocaust survivors in the largely Jewish city.
The Skokie case is considered one of the milestone moments for free speech, allowing a small group of anti-Semites and racists to march despite the overwhelming opposition in the public. The Nazis were outnumbered 70-1 by counterprotesters and soon receded into obscurity.
Now roughly five decades later, Jewish marchers are being effectively blocked from marching through the city of Chicago, presumably because they would be “too disruptive.”
The city’s passive aggressive approach is fooling no one.
The Johnson administration has been coordinating plans for the convention with the Democratic leadership. The record in this case shows a transparently hostile response to the Jewish protesters. Despite putting in their request in June, the Jewish protesters were denied while pro-Palestinian protesters were granted permission to march.
The city slow-walked the permit request. When the permit was not granted, it then said that the Jewish groups failed to apply in time when they renewed their requests multiple times. The groups have accused the city of simply not responding to their repeated efforts to address the permits.
Yet Hatem Abudayyeh, executive director of the Arab American Action Network, said that the mayor had personally reached out to reemphasize his support: “The mayor has said from the very beginning that he supports the protest movement. The protest movement is what brought him to City Hall. . . . He said, ‘I understand that struggle. Because I am part of a national liberation struggle as well.’”
It was equally clear that many Democrats did not want Jews to march.
This is unfortunately nothing new for those who support Israel. At Columbia, a professor had his school access card deactivated and was told not to come on campus because his presence might enrage anti-Israel protesters.
In England, a Jewish man was told that he could not walk on a street because “you are quite openly Jewish” and it might trigger pro-Palestinian marchers.
The treatment of the Jewish groups in Chicago outside of the convention stands in sharp contrast to what is being said inside the convention. Speaker after speaker has declared the party to be the champion of the Constitution and free speech.
The one thing that organizers cannot abide in a celebration of constitutional freedom is the actual exercise of those freedoms by unpopular groups.
In only five decades, Jewish groups have become too controversial to march. Instead, the Israeli-American Council has given up waiting for a permit to march and will host a Hostage Square display on private property.
The irony is crushing for many of us who lived through the 1978 controversy. While the Nazis could march in Skokie, these Jews will not be marching in Chicago.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
“However, this largely Jewish gathering will not be marching. Instead, they will gather on a small private lot blocks away from the convention as thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters march through the streets.”
Wow JT, you make this sound like 1968. Except, it’s not.
You will do anything to make the Demos look bad while you close your eyes to the rot that is the felon sexual abuser trump.
Yawn
No it is not 1968.
It is exactly what it is – it is democrats violating the constitutional rights of groups they wish to silence.
First the Pro-Jewish groups MUST be free to protest the democratic convention – right up to the sidewalk outside the convention.
Next the Pro-Hamas groups MUST be free to protest the democratic convention – right up to the sidewalk outside the convention.
People – right and left are free to protest in front of the White House – right up to the fence arround the WH.
People – right and left are free to protest inside the public spaces in the Capitol.
Instead Pro-Hamas protestors are being kept half a mile away – way outside of range of cameras.
And Pro-Jewish groups are not allowed to publicly protest at all.
So Democrats are violating EVERYONE’s first amendment rights – just not equally. Hence the claim of anti-semetism.
What is also interesting is that despite fairly large scalle efforts to disrupt the convention – the Chicago police have to a very large extent managed to maintain order.
Amazing – fences and police actually work.
In left wing nut world it is OK to burn down police stations. But it is not OK for anyone to protest the DNC on their big day
Pro-Jewish groups were free to protest and they were protesting. Their right to protest was not blocked. They chose to remain low key in order to avoid being disrupted by pro-Palestinian groups. Pro-Jewish groups had access to “free speech platforms and were given different options to march on other areas not in direct conflict with pro-Palestinian marchers. Government can place time, place, and manner restrictions on exercise of free speech.
Turley is not making Democrats look bad – they are doing that themselves.
While many people are no consciously aware of the significance of the threat to liberty manifest by the democrats as a whole or the behavior arround the DNC more generally, They can not help but grasp it sub consciously.
It is Self evident that at the bnehest of the DNC and in the interests of Democrats and the Harris/Walz campaign that the City of Chicago has MASSIVELY engaged in unconstitutional censorship.
While espeically to in the tank left wing nut this all appears natural and begnign, at the same time it is clear exactly why we do not censor.
What is occuring in Chicago is VIEWPOINT discrimination.
Numerous groups – outside of the convention itself, want to have their voices heard.
Inside the convention hall – Democrats control who can speak and what they can say – the actions inside the Convention should be a primer to those on the left.
You can not shout down speakers, You can not coopt someone else’s event from the inside. It they allow you to ask questions – which nearly all conservative groups speaking on campus do – you can do so in an orderly fashion. If not – there is no right to speak INSIDE someone else’s event.
But OUTSIDE is different. In public Government can take NARROWLY TAILORED actions to preserve order.
What it CAN NOT do is engage in viewpoint discrimination – which Chicago CLEARLY has.
Viewpoints highly favored by the DNC are receiving preferential treatment by Chicago – Planned Parenthood as well as pro-choice “protests” are permitted right outside the convention center.
ProHamas protests are more tightly regulated and must be kept 1/2 mile away. Democrats do not want the convention to be marred by violence by these toddlers prone to violence. But they respresent an important democrat voting block that must come out to vote if democrats are to avoid losing the election. And finally Jews get to sit in the back of the bus.
Those of you on the left – you are perfectly free to choose which viewpoints you prefer. You are free to rank them as you please.
Inside your own space you are free to silence, or tone down or emphasize viewpoints in accord with YOUR preferences.
But you MAY NOT use government power – FORCE to do what you are free to do privately.
The DNC can prefer planned parenthood over Jews.
The City of Chicago can not.
Those of you on the left can pretend all you like that all of this was reasonable and inconsequential.
But it was NOT – you used the power of the city of Chicago to decide whose expression get prioritized in Public Forumns.
You MAY NOT do that. It is wrong, it is immoral. It is unconstitutional. It is ultimately socially destructive.
And most of you on the left are incapable of understanding that.
OT
John Jay and George Washington proposed the “natural born citizen” requirement to preclude foreigners from “…Government; and…the Command in chief of the american army….”
The Framers entered that phrase into the Constitution.
____________________________________________________________
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
– John Jay Letter to George Washington, 1787
_______________________________________
Foreigners in Government and Command in Chief of the American Army:
– De facto President – Barack Obama
– President – Kamala Harris
– Secretary of Defense – Lloyd Austin
– Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff – Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr.
________________________________________________________________
The only scholarly definition of “natural born citizen” in history:
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
_________________________________
Immigration Law of the American Founders:
Naturalization Act of 1790
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person…may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
___________________
What happened, America?
Comrade General Secretary and Dear Leader “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, fellow traveler of Karl Marx, happened illicitly and unconstitutionally.
No matter how many times you post this bovine excrement it remains what it is.
There is NO reason to believe that Jay or Washington had ever read Vattel, and there is certainly none to believe that many of the delegates in Philadelphia, let alone the ones who really count, which is the delegates to the ratifying conventions, had ever read Vattel, or had his peculiar definition in mind. You are simply making that up.
There is no doubt or serious dispute that both Barack 0bama and Kamala Harris are natural born US citizens. The only people who dispute it are cranks like you.
In Israel, Jews are to be pushed into the sea. In America, they are to be pushed to the back of the bus… private lot. Deja vu.
We saw this movie 86 years ago.
The American Founders refused the unassimilable communist, anti-Constitution, and anti-American Brandon Johnson admission to become a citizen in 1790, within the year of adoption of the Constitution.
Now you know why.
America must go “Back to the Future” of the clear meaning and original intent of its Constitution and Bill of Rights before communism permanently precludes the opportunity.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Oh, it already has you say.
I stand corrected.
_____________________
1st 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.
Dear Prof Turley,
Omg! I knew there was something ‘funny’ (i.e. strange) about you! I suspected some kind of deeply-held religious voodoo at work here: Are you comparing the ‘pro-Israel protestors’ at the Chi-town DNC with the Nazi skin-heads in Skokie back in 78′!?
In any case, it would be hard to argue a few old neo Nazi had more sway & influence over U.S. politics, culture and media today than Israel does .. . but your right, of course, on ‘free speech’ grounds: Let ’em march & ‘walk the plank’ right off into obscurity just like the Nazi skin-heads back in 78′.
There is no justification for what ‘Israel’ is doing in Gaza. That’s not fighting ‘Hamas’.
As President Bibi Netanyahu recently explained to the U.S. congress recently, in no uncertain terms, the DNC are probably all ‘useful idiots’ of the Iran Ayatollah anyway. .. quite a coup.
Regretfully, I’ve watched as much as I could of the DNC convention. The ‘pro-Israel protesters’ are not missing anything.
Frankly, I think our entire political ‘process’ (h/t Kamala!) has devolved into a veritable scheming sh!t show of
official malfeasance, Highly-paid wholly-owned media surrogates, systemic corruption, social anarchy, weapons of war . .. and symptoms of *madness*.
We live in dangerous times. All it takes is one mistake . .. and nobody is even talking!
*some folks just have to learn the hard way .. . if they learn at all.
“Frankly, I think our entire political ‘process’ (h/t Kamala!) has devolved into a veritable scheming sh!t show of official malfeasance, Highly-paid wholly-owned media surrogates, systemic corruption, social anarchy, weapons of war . .. and symptoms of *madness*.”
– dgsnowden
________________
That already happened in the wholly unconstitutional and communist “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln (Karl Marx’s fellow traveler) when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were extirpated and entire, pernicious, foreign armies and unassimilable populations were insidiously ensconced on U.S. soil.
“has devolved into a veritable scheming sh!t show of official malfeasance”
Are you talking about trump on Jan 6, 2021 again?
Your interpretive skills are lacking anon. Should have gotten an education. Stupid is no way to go through life.
You miss the critical point – which has little to do with the DNC convention and everything to do with the democrat run city of chicago.
What happened OUTSIDE the convention center was that the City of Chicago engaged in viewpoint discrimination with respect to competing protests.
The DNC may do that inside the convention center.
The city of chicago can not.
It does not matter whether Chicago favored planned parenthood, over proHamas over jews, or some other order.
What is clear is they prioritized the free speech rights of some groups over others.
Government may not do that.
Oh boy, looks like Turley has been very loose with the facts. Per usual, Turley is only telling half the story and he’s also being disingenuous. Let’s break it down shall we?
“ This week, citizens will gather in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention to voice their support for Israel and protest the abuses of Hamas.
However, this largely Jewish gathering will not be marching. Instead, they will gather on a small private lot blocks away from the convention as thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters march through the streets.
The reason is that Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson has refused to grant their request for a permit.”
Turley is falsely insinuating that the Jewish group, a small one by the way, was planning on marching. That’s not true. They never planned to march. It seems Turley is either getting his information from a right leaning source or he is just parroting what he was told instead of finding out if the story is indeed true. Unfortunately it’s not. Here’s the reporting from the Times of Israel news organization reporting directly from the source. The Jewish group mentioned by Turley.
“ CHICAGO — Hundreds of people on Tuesday stopped by “Hostage Square,” which was erected in Chicago to raise awareness for the plight of the 105 hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza.
The square, located in an empty lot about a mile from the Democratic National Convention, featured several exhibits by Israeli and American artists honoring the victims of the terror group’s October 7 onslaught. One of the exhibits featured milk cartons adorned with photos of the eight American hostages in Gaza, playing off “missing person” ads that were seen on such containers in the late 20th century.
The expo was organized by the Israeli American Council, which said it was forced to find a space on private property after the city of Chicago refused to give it a permit for a space closer to or within the perimeter of the Democratic National Convention. The pop-up square was meant to be a deliberate repudiation of the raucous protests that a coalition of pro-Palestinian groups has planned.“
This is the same zone Turley is talking about in his column. They never planned to march. They were denied a permit for the exhibit, not a march. Because the exhibit required space near the convention among many other exhibits. They were denied because of capacity constraints. They were also not the only ones denied a permit. There were also multiple groups who were denied permits to the rally. So this wasn’t aimed at just this jewish group.
Turley implies this group was denied their free speech rights because they were not allowed to march when they were not planning to march. They were planning an exhibit, “Hostage square”.
The group did get to express their views and have access to a “Speaker’s platform” set up at a nearby park to accommodate the various groups that were declined rally permits due to capacity constraints. This Jewish group accepted a spot on the platform. They were certainly not denied their right of free speech.
“ While pro-Palestinian protesters have been given an array of accommodations by the city (and received a shoutout from President Joe Biden in his convention address), the Jewish protesters are only able to gather due to the donation of a private lot by an owner for their use.”
Here we see Turley misconstruing the issue to paint the Jewish group as victims of bias. Not true again. The Jewish protesters CHOSE to hold the exhibit a a private lot because they did not want pro-Palestinians protesters to interfere or vandalize their exhibit as the Times of Israel reports,
“ Whether the exhibit would attract anyone who had not previously been invested in the plight of the hostages was unclear. Registered attendees got notice of the address only at 7 a.m., a tactic that virtually every Jewish organization running an event this week in Chicago has adopted in order to avoid disruptions from protesters.
People who just turned up were let in as long as they showed identification and gave a phone number. The pop-up closed at the end of the day.”
This was planned. Every Jewish organization was avoiding undue attention from the pro-Palestinian protesters to prevent disruption or vandalism. Turley implies they were pushed out of the way onto an area far from the convention so they would not be seen. Turley is wrong on that. They chose to be out on the fringes and remain away from potential disruption. Turley didn’t mention that an Orthodox Jewish group did get a permit closer to the convention, but they deliberately kept it small and protected by police.
Also this,
“ Israel’s Consul General in Chicago Yinam Cohen lamented on Tuesday the “institutional support” he argued the city of Chicago had provided to anti-Israel protests taking place outside the Democratic National Convention.” He did not elaborate on the charge but that. Is to be expected. The Times of Israel added,
“ Despite his criticism of the city, Cohen said the reception he and other Israeli diplomats have been receiving at the DNC has been “extraordinary.”
They were not being treated the way Turley claims they were. Then the Cohen said this,
“Just like we were at the RNC last month, we are here at the DNC to really celebrate the strategic alliance between the United States and Israel,” he said.
In his column Turley said,
“ Even as pro-Palestinian protesters veered off approved routes and tore down security fencing, it will be the Jewish protesters who will reportedly remain confined to this private lot under the watchful eye of the Chicago Police Department.”
Turley didn’t mention the fact that it was only a handful of protesters not affiliated with the main protest and they were arrested.
“ Several demonstrators were arrested Tuesday after breaching one of the outer perimeters of Chicago’s United Center, where the main events are being held.”
Turley leaves out a lot in his columns to imply something that is not true. The reason why Jewish groups are not openly protesting is because they don’t want to end up in a confrontation with thousands or hundreds of protesters who could disrupt their events. As reported by the Times of Israel,
“ Meanwhile, a handful of anti-Israel protesters briefly disrupted an event organized by an Orthodox Jewish group on the sidelines of the DNC on Tuesday. The Agudath Israel of America event focused on growing the electoral strength of the Orthodox Jewish community and rising antisemitism in the US.
While the event only mentioned Israel in passing, a handful of masked, far-left protesters chanted, “Brick by brick, wall by wall, Zionism has got to fall” and shouted “Shame on you” at participants.
Organizers of Jewish events at the DNC have refrained from publicizing their location ahead of time to avoid such disruptions. The incident appears to be the first time far-left protesters succeeded in discovering the site of a Jewish gathering in advance.”
This doesn’t mean they were denied their free speech rights. They got to express it as they determined to express it with police protection. The police was not there to keep them in line like Turley falsely implied. They were there to protect them from protesters intent on disrupting their events.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-activists-erect-hostage-square-in-chicago-on-sidelines-of-democratic-convention/amp/
They were denied a permit to march.
The judicial branch and Supreme Court have a duty to review and strike down the decision of the mayor of this city.
The executive branch has a duty to deploy security forces to detain and prosecute the low-criminal mayor for the egregious crime of the denial of constitutional rights and freedoms.
The People have a duty to provide Guards for their security.
__________________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
George, the weird one,
“The judicial branch and Supreme Court have a duty to review and strike down the decision of the mayor of this city.”
Courts don’t just decide to review decisions out of the blue. The Jewish groups must sue first. But, since they are nor being denied their constitutional rights they have no reason to.
“The People have a duty to provide Guards for their security.”
They had police protection. So…
The right to protest is a constitutional right. This is a long decided issue.
Even President Wilson could not remove Sufferage protestors from outside the WH fence.
Permits for protests are MUST ISSUE.
As a rule the courts do hear lawsuits on matters like this – and normally decide them in hours – when the issue is time critical.
But as is typical with lawless democrats – the courts will slow walk this and after the election wag their finger at the mayor and go “bad boy”
Just as will happen with all the lawfare against Trump and RFK jr.
Democrats will do whatever it takes to win elections – including violating peoples rights and democrat judges will either go along or delay until the effect is acheived.
Here is the ACLU on protests.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights
I would note that Permits are NOT necescary for protests on the public streets and sidewalks.
The DNC can deny protestors entrance to the convention – but not to the streets and side walks.
“I would note that Permits are NOT necescary for protests on the public streets and sidewalks.”
Government’s can place restrictions on time, place, and manner. Permits are used to manage that. The pro-Jewish groups were given reasonable alternatives which they refused. They were not denied their right to protest since they chose a private property to set up their exhibit and they were given an alternative route to march. The city was also denying pro-Palestinian marchers permits to march on the routes they wanted. They sued and they agreed on an alternate route and times to march.
“Government’s can place restrictions on time, place, and manner.”
They must do so in a viewpoint neutral manner, and those restrictions must be NARROWLY TAILORED.
Govenrment can not as an example say – because some protest groups MIGHT be violent – no one can protest.
It can not say that because Group a and B might get into violence with each other – only A or only B can protest.
It must allow both.
Government can not use time, place and manner restrictions to accomplish througfh the backdoor what they can not do directly – viewpoint discrimination.
“Permits are used to manage that.”
They are – the courts have also already stated unequivocally – Permits can not be required for public forums.
“The pro-Jewish groups were given reasonable alternatives which they refused. ”
Government is REQUIRED to give them the same choices as all other groups.
Govenrment may not decide that Groups A gets the choices it wants, but Group B gets “reasonable chocies”
To the very limited ability that govenrment may choose what is “reasonable” it MAY NOT determnine that what is “reasonable” for one groups is not for another.
That is viepoint descrimination and it is immoral and unconstitutional.
“They were not denied their right to protest”
They were not – but they WERE denied the same right to free speech that others were given.
Planned parenthood and womens groups were allowed right outside the convention center.
pro hamas groups had to stay 1/2 mile away, jewish groups were kept a mile away – that is viewpoint descrimination.
It is wrong and unconstitutional.
It would be no different if at the Republican convention – jewish groups were allowed right outside the convention – and women’s groups had to be a mile away.
Government can not favor one viewpoint over another.
This is not about permits or time and place restriction s- though you are factually and legally wrong about those.
It is about violating the right to free speech.
When government choses which groups are favored – it violates disfavored groups rights.
George – this is a legal blog – you are expected not ro post blatantly unconstitutional nonsense.
There is a constitutional right to protest.
John Say,
“George – this is a legal blog – you are expected not ro post blatantly unconstitutional nonsense.”
It’s free speech. Posting my view of the issue is not unconstitutional nonsense. You’re free not to read my posts if you don’t agree.
Pro-Jewish groups were not denied their right to protest. They still got to protest and set up their exhibits and small protest groups. They were given options and other venues nearby. That is perfectly constitutional and legal. Time, place and manner restrictions are perfectly legal.
“It’s free speech. ”
Correct. Though this blog is not a public forum. It is provided by Turely.
This blocg is like the inside of the DNC convention – the DNC or in this case Turley gets to decide what is permitted and what is not.
“Posting my view of the issue is not unconstitutional nonsense. ”
Of course it is. Your excersice of your speech says absolutely nothing about the quality of your speech.
You are posting unconstitutional nonsense – that is an immutable fact.
“You’re free not to read my posts if you don’t agree.”
Correct. I am also free to read them and point out that they are nonsense.
“Pro-Jewish groups were not denied their right to protest. They still got to protest and set up their exhibits and small protest groups. They were given options and other venues nearby.”
Correct. But they WERE sent to the back of the bus.
Chicago engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination – it picked favored and dsifavored groups and treated them differently. It can not do that.
“That is perfectly constitutional and legal.”
Nope.
“Time, place and manner restrictions are perfectly legal.”
NOPE.
SOME Time and place restrictions are constitutional.
Any restrictions of any kind that have the effect of descriminating based on viewpoint are unconstitutional – period.
Govenrment can not use permissible restrictions to engage in impermissible conduct.
Government can not say you can protest for Israel, but only on sundays. after midnight in your shower.
ALL restrictions must be NECESSARY – or they are unconstitutional.
They must be narrowly tailored to achieve the NECESSARY objective and only the necessary objective, and they can not ever result in viewpoint discrimination.
You are CONSTANTLY trying to accomplish through the backdoor what you know you can not do through the front.
Government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination PERIOD.
Government may not use means it MAY be permitted to use to accomplish something it is NOT permitted to do.
Viewpoint discrimination.
What Chicago did at the DNC is SLAM DUNK unconstitutional.
It is OBVIOUS that it treated different protesters different based on their views .
* she or he has reading comp problems. Synapses and axioms misaligned during gestation.
No, they were denied a permit to hold an exhibit close to the convention. They never planned to march. All the Jewish organizations chose to keep a low profile to avoid their exhibits or gatherings from being disrupted. Marching would be the opposite of being…low key.
YES They DID plan to march, just as the pro-Palestinian group (eight +) did/do.
Why do you continue to lie? You have no credibility on this site.
Cite a direct quote from the Jewish organization saying they planned to march. I’ll wait.
No need to wait, they were already provided below, @ 1:25 and 1:37, citing THREE DIFFERENT SOURCES. Look them up or is that beyond your reading comprehension. I am really getting sick of your condescending garbage.
Those are just news articles. Cite their alleged application. News articles are not sources. Fake news is everywhere. Can’t trust those sources.
YOU are the one who cited “just a news article.” Did you cite the alleged application?CLown
from the eejit George, who cited a single “news article” as his source. Can’t make this stuff up, folks.
Fake news is everywhere- YOU are fake news.
Turley notes that Planned PArenthood was allowed to setup right next to the convention.
Other groups protesting in ways the DNC supported were allowed close to the convention.
That is viewpoint discrimination.
The DNC has the absolute right to control what goes on INSIDE the convention hall.
They do NOT have the right to dictate to the city who gets favorable treatment OUTSIDE the convention hall – starting with the sidewalks arround the building.
The city has the right to limit who can protest within the security zone for safety reasons. Restrictions on time, place and manner are constitutional.
Orthodox Jews were allowed to protest near the convention. Their group was disruptive by pro-Palestinian protesters and they were protected by police. Resources needed to keep all groups separated and maintain security and safety within the limited space in the inner secularity zone is legal. Especially since the president is going to be there. Since Trump’s assassination attempt the secret service will take no chances and have zero tolerance.
The secret service has absolute authority on what happens within the inner security perimeter. The city had to consider that.
“The city has the right to limit who can protest within the security zone for safety reasons.”
FALSE. The city can not EVER limit WHO. Any restriction that applies to some must apply to all.
There are numous Supreme court cases on “security zones” as well as safety claims.
The Supreme court has allowed VERY SMALL security zones RARELY – Zones of a few FEET not half a mile.
As I recall the supreme court has supported ordinances that required 5ft clear of an abortion clinic, but not 30ft.
Do you really think half a mile or even a mile will be acceptable when 30ft is not.
Regardless any security zones and safety reasons must apply equally to all.
“Restrictions on time, place and manner are constitutional.”
You keep repeating this absolute nonsense.
No restrictions that are not narrowly tailored are constitutional.
No restrictions that result in viewpoint discrimination are EVER constitutional.
“Orthodox Jews were allowed to protest near the convention.”
Even if true – and no one trusts you – that would not matter.
Chicago can not pick one group over another.
“Their group was disruptive by pro-Palestinian protesters and they were protected by police.”
That is their job.
” Resources needed to keep all groups separated and maintain security and safety within the limited space in the inner secularity zone is legal.”
A “secularity zone” is on its face UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That would be even worse that viewpoint discrimination.
Government can not EVER disfavor a specific religious belief or all religious belief.
Any restriction must apply to everyone or it is unconstitutional.
And even that does not assure it is constitutional.
Chicago can not as an example say – No one can protest withing 1/2 mile of the convention.
“Especially since the president is going to be there.”
Not relevant. The secret service can require people be searched entering the building.
They can secure the presidents route into an out of the building.
But they can not use the presence of the president as the means to stop protests.
This is a stupid argument. The area around the WH is one of the more important public protests zones in the world.
The left ranted falsely that Bar cleared ONE PART of the area arround the WH because the prior night the WH security fences had been damaged by protesters and new temporary fences had to be erected while the originals were fortified and repaired. That was a temporary measure effecting only PART of the surrounds of the WH.
” Since Trump’s assassination attempt the secret service will take no chances and have zero tolerance.”
Which is why they have screwed up many times since.
“The secret service has absolute authority on what happens within the inner security perimeter.”
Nope. The words “narrowly tailored” appear to mean nothing to you.
” The city had to consider that”
Neither the secret service nor the city of chicago are allowed to engage in viewpoint descrimination .
PERIOD.
Chicaogo clearly did.
George you keep grasping at straws.
The constitution bars viewpoint discrimination PERIOD.
You constantly try to argue that some language in the constitution, or law or caselaw that was intended to LIMIT govenrment is actually a grant of broad power.
You say time place and manner restrictions are ALWAYS constitutional.
That is FALSE.
What the courts have said is that ONLY time place and manner restrictions MAY be constitutional.
Restrictions that are not time, place or matter are automatically unconstitutional.
Viwpoint restrictions – either explicit or implicit are automatically unconstitutional.
Look it up yourself. They were denied a permit to march.
They were denied a permit to march. Period.
You sound so bitter anonymous.
Whether I am bitter or not is immaterial. You sound like a gaslighting fool. trying to change the subject.
The fact is, they were denied a permit to march. The fact is, George was wrong AGAIN
Why is it that you left wing nuts always assume you can read the minds of others.
Many different groups – jewish and not, sought permits for many different things.
Did some jewish groups seek to keep a low profile – I do not know – nor do you.
Did others reject that – absolutely – there have already been clashes between jewish protestors and prohamas protestors.
I would note that not only do they have the right to protest – they also have the right to put up an exhibit near the convention center.
The City can plead limited space – AFTER they have exhausted all possible space – including closing streets to make them avaiable for protests and exhibits. But even when they plead limited resources they must still act viewpoint neutral.
They did not.
Thje city is NOT allowed to prohibt Jews from exhibiting because they might be near prohamas groups.
They are allowed – even required to separate them. But they can not deny either the right to protest or exhibit.
The copnstitutional law on all of this is anceint.
The city is not required to close streets to make them available for protests and exhibits. Streets are there for traffic, not for communication. But it is required to hand out whatever space it does decide to allocate for such things on a viewpoint-neutral basis.
“Did some jewish groups seek to keep a low profile – I do not know – nor do you.”
Yes I do, because they said so. They kept the time and place of their exhibit secret just before their opening. To keep pro-Palestinian protesters from disrupting it.
“Many different groups – jewish and not, sought permits for many different things.”
Yes, they did. Many other groups were denied permits too. Not just the Jewish ones.
“I would note that not only do they have the right to protest – they also have the right to put up an exhibit near the convention center.”
And they did protest near the convention center, a mile away. Government can place time, place, and manner restrictions on protests.
“Thje city is NOT allowed to prohibt Jews from exhibiting because they might be near prohamas groups.
They are allowed – even required to separate them. But they can not deny either the right to protest or exhibit.”
They did keep them separated. When they gave them the option to march on a different route and place to protest. The city CAN place limits based on safety and security and because of limited resources. Nobody got denied their right to protest. They got denied the areas they could protest due to safety and security limitations. That is legal. Especially when government gave them reasonable options. Pro-Jewish groups still got to protest and display their exhibits. They were not shut down or prevented from expressing their views.
Time, place, and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations that the government can impose on expressive activities, such as speech and assembly. These restrictions can limit when, where, or how people can express themselves, but they don’t control what people say or do. The government can make these restrictions as long as they are necessary and don’t violate the First Amendment. SCOTUS has upheld these types of restrictions.
Because they were Jews…..
THIS WILL PROVE TO READERS HOW GEORGE, GIGI, AND DENNIS dishonestly pick and choose their facts and sources.
“For several weeks, the City of Chicago has been sitting on a request from a pro-Israel group to hold a solidarity march, even as it has granted permission for a coalition of pro-Palestinian activists at least eight separate groups, noted elsewhere] to demonstrate when the proceedings kick off…”
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/08/democratic-national-convention-city-of-chicago-pro-israel-solidarity-march/
“The IAC then applied for marches near both McCormick Place and the United Center, but Carr says they were effectively ghosted. “We still haven’t heard. Neither granted nor denied, simply ignored. Meanwhile, they granted anti-Israel groups the permit to march around the United Center.”
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-08-20/ty-article/.premium/hostage-square-chicago-families-pro-israel-group-rally-outside-dnc-against-all-haters/00000191-712c-d7fc-ab93-f33f2d6f0000
In the end, they were left with just the exhibition space from a private party.
“IAC says it has had trouble acquiring permits… The Department of Transportation offered an alternate location three blocks away that the IAC rejected because it said the space was too far away from the site of the convention, Jewish Insider reported.
Pro-Palestinian groups have secured permits for large marches on the first, third and last day of the convention. The marches are slated to start at a park a few blocks away and head to the area of the United Center.”
“The public art installation, organized by the Israeli American Council, will be held on a private lot and does not need require a permit, a spokesperson told JTA.”
https://www.jta.org/2024/08/14/politics/tel-avivs-hostage-square-is-coming-to-chicago-for-the-dnc-with-or-without-a-permit
Mmmmm…..I appears you are sort of right. They did plan to march. However it is still not because of what Turley implies.
This is the actual denial letter,
https://jewishinsider.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/07110419/Israel-Loves-America-Denial-letter-8-22-24-With-Watermark.pdf
They point to problems with routes they want and the safety concerns. Because the pro-Palestinian marches and protests are huge compared to the pro-Israel supposed march. The city seemed more concerned by possible disruptions from the pro-Palestinian marchers than this tiny group.
However, it still doesn’t change the fact that the pro-Israel group was still able to exercise their free speech rights at a park and the private lot. They weren’t denied their rights. Government can still place time, place, manner restrictions on free speech in order to maintain safety and security at events.
Being denied a permit seems to have been more about logistical and security concerns. The larger marches seemed to be a priority. The pro-Israel group was not singled out nor the only one denied a permit. Turley didn’t bother to mention that either.
The small and mostly unknown “Israel Loves America” group which received the letter you cite is NOT the large IAC. Do you suffer from reading comprehension?
The IAC represented and organized the “Israel loves America” group. It was small compared the pro-Palestinian groups. They numbered in thousands.
Your “source” also points out that pro-Palestinians sued Chicago over their denial for the routes they wanted. They eventually settled on an acceptable route. Perhaps the city was busy negotiating with the pro-Palestinian groups over the routes and the IAC’s application was on hold pending the pro-Palestinian complaints. They did offer the IAC options on routes and areas where they could set up displays and protest. So their free speech rights were not infringed.
NONE of what you say matters or is relevant to you LYING about Turley and LYING about pro-Israeli groups unable to get permits. Reading comprehension and context are not your strengths, are they, Georgie?
“The IAC represented and organized the “Israel loves America” group.”
Cite your source, George. I’ll wait.
Update. Georgie never responded.
It comes from one of your three sources. You didn’t read them? Or is it that reading comprehension. Problem again?
not reading something has NOTHING to do with reading comprehension. Get it????
to comprehend something, you must read, see, hear, or touch it. Clown
They applied for a permit to march.
Like i told you Svelaz
I corrected your ignorant ass 4 times.
As always, you need to seek the truth, not confirmation
Your source says July. Are you sure you’re reading your sources?
You seem flustered or triggered.
Whether I am flustered or triggered is immaterial. You were wrong AGAIN.
Your 5 minute google search left you woefully ignorant AGAIN.
You would love for the ridicule heaped upon you daily to just be frustration, but again….WRONG.
Must be a reading comprehension thing.
The city is allowed to apply NARROWLY TAILORED restrictions based on Safety.
But they CAN NOT use Safety concerns or any other allegedly anrrowly Tailored restrictions as a means to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
As has been noted REPEATEDLY – including by Turley – Planned parent hood has been allowed on the street outside the convention center. Favored marches have been allowed on the street of the convention center.
Less favored marches and events were kept progressively further away – with Jews left in Timbucktoo.
Chicog is NOT allowed to discriminate based on view point.
They are not allowed to do so themselves, they are not allowed to outsource viewpoint discrimination to the DNC.
This ios all blatantly unconstitutional.
But they will get away with it because the courts are unlikely to intervene until after the election.
After all these are democrat courts – they know which side of the bread the butter is on.
And this – including your arguments are typical of the left –
We did not do a bad thing.
Oops we did a bad thing, but its OK because we had good reasons.
Oops are reasons were unconstitutional, But its OK because the courts did not overturn obvious constitutional violations until AFTER the fact when there was nothing to be done.
But hey We’re the good people. So its OK.
John Say,
Time, place, and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations that the government can impose on expressive activities, such as speech and assembly. These restrictions can limit when, where, or how people can express themselves, but they don’t control what people say or do. The government can make these restrictions as long as they are necessary and don’t violate the First Amendment.
“The city is allowed to apply NARROWLY TAILORED restrictions based on Safety.
But they CAN NOT use Safety concerns or any other allegedly anrrowly Tailored restrictions as a means to engage in viewpoint discrimination.”
You contradict yourself. You say the city is allowed to apply narrowly tailored restrictions. That is correct. Especially within a highly secured zone like the area surrounding the convention when the president is there.
But, then you say the city cannot use safety concerns to engage in viewpoint discrimination. Safety and security overrides concerns about viewpoint discrimination when it involves the presidential security bubble. Especially after the secret service’s failure at Trump’s rally. They are not going to take any chances.
There is no contradiction.
Government can NEVER engage in viewpoint discrimination. PERIOD.
It can not do so facially – i.e. by laws that bar disfavor specific views.
If can not do so “as applied” – by laws that are content neutral on the surface, but are applied based on content or have the predictable effect of restricting viewpoints.
If you can not pass those tests – the govenrments laws, regulations or actions are constitutionally impermissible. PERIOD.
NEXT TEST
Restrictions on speech must be restrictions on Time, place or manner – any other type of restrictions are unconstitutional. PERIOD.
NEXT TEST
Restrictions must have a necessary public purpose – like Safety.
Just because a law has a necescary public purpose does not make it constitutional.
But the absence of a necescary public purpose makes it unconstitutional.
NEXT TEST
Restrictions must be narrowly tailored.
As an example:
No protests within 1 mile of the convention center is not narrowly tailored and is unconstitutional.
Laws requiring protestors not to block traffic on roads or sidewalks are constitutional.
Laws requiring 5ft of access to an abortion clinic are constitutional.
Laws barring protestors from public sidewalks in front of abortion clinics are NOT constitutional.
Narrowly tailors means if there are many ways to accomples a necescary public purpose the least infringing means must be used.
George there are MANY tests that must be met for a law that infringes on first amendment rights to be constitutional.
ALL of them must be met.
The restriction MUST ALWAYS be viewpoint neutral.
The restriction MUST ALWAYS
The restriction MUST ONLY be a time place and manner restriction.
The restriction MUST ALWAYS be the least infringing means
These is no contradiction – just a list of conditions that MUST ALWAYS be met.
Violate ONE and you are acting unconstitutionally.
George
You have an obvious logical problem – aside from misunderstanding the constitution.
Your arguments are ALWAYS framed as
How can I/the left./Government Game the constitution and law to accomplish precisely what the constitution and laws were intended to prevent.
Your obvious objective is to allow Democrats to control the protests at their convention such that the world and voters specifically see them in the best possible light.
I have no doubt the Republicans want exactly the same thing.
There is nothing wrong with that goal. Just as there is nothing wrong with the various different goals of various protest groups. The ProHamas protestors wish to see the US reduce its support for Israel.
I do not fully agree with that goal – but those protesters are allowed to have that goal.
But NO ONE – not republicans, not democrats, not jews, not prohamas protestors are free to use the power of Government to turn their goal into reality by silencing or diminishing the speech of others.
OUTSIDE the DNC convention in Chicago we have a CLASH of goals. No group is entitled to have the City of Chicago determine who wins that clash. Free speech literally means everyone who wants has the opportunity to speak.
It also means that Government CAN NOT act to determine which views are heard.
Government can NOT say – everyone is free to speak – but only in the boonies.
Worse still Government can not say – everyone is free to speak – but SOME groups can only speak in the boonies.
WE THE PEOPLE get to decide who we wish to listen to – not the DNC, not the City of Chicago.
We – each of us INDIVIDUALLY gets to choose how much weight to give to each group competing for our attention.
That is the PURPOSE of the First amendment.
The sequence of tests I gave you is the means that the courts have worked out over the years to accomplish the purpose of the first amendment.
You CONSTANTLY err, because you treat the constitution and the law as a means to YOUR ends. Which ALWAYS involve some degree of control over the freedom of others.
The purpose of the first amendment is NOT to acheive your goals or mine.
It is not even to assure that everyone gets to speak as they please.
It is to assure that each and everyone of us INDIVIDUALLY gets to HEAR whatever we want to hear.
When you think of the first amendment you shgould ask does trhe action of government make it harder for ANY individuals to hear what THEY wish to hear.
@George
Everyone knows you are a schill; mercifully, thereby, no one expects you to say anything a schill wouldn’t say. That you do it repetitively every day means you are either autistic in the extreme or paid. We see you everyday, and we get about what we expect. Doesn’t change anybody’s mind about anything. Modern DNC trolls have redefined prosaic, predictable, and boring. Yawn. 🙄 Give Nancy our regards. I hope she’s happy she destroyed a generational legacy with her sociopathy. The same to Obama. JFK would have spit on the both of them.
—“Oh boy, looks like GEORGE has been very loose with the facts.
Per usual, GEORGE is only telling half the story and he’s also being disingenuous.”
Plus ‘liking’ your own comments again? How much are you paid to be here?
Loose with the facts ? Goerge can not put to words next to each other without lying.
He is also radically wrong about the law and the constitution.
Hey George: The location (for an exhibit, not a march) is A MILE AWAY. says so in the article you cited.
Several blocks can make up a mile. What’s your point? Oh it’s your….never mind. (reading comprehension).
yeah, about 20. real close to the convention Center
https://www.convertunits.com/from/blocks/to/miles
Between 7 and 20 blocks make up a mile – with the average being about 12.
It takes a healthy person about 20 minutes to walk a mile.
Svelaz, look around dude. Do you not care how ridiculous you look in a public forum? Is it your anonymity that affords you no shame or self respect?
Pro tip: every time you take a SWAG at someones state of mind, or respond with “reading comprehension”, you are simply conceding the point, in a childish way at that. Do better.
Anonymous, huh?
Childish? You post anonymously and go wild on ad hominem and personal attacks and you are asking others to do…better? Weird.
Hey, free speech. Just as you are prefecly allowed to make a fool of yourself and attack others for their opinions. So what’s your point?
George.
All protesters – are being kept 1/2 mile away from the DNC – that is unconstitutional.
Protest permits are “MUST ISSUE”
This is long settled constitutional law.
If there are resources constraints – the City can limit the time of each groups use of public space.
But it MUST allow the protests. And it can not keep them 1/2mile away from the DNC any more than protestors can be kept 1/2 mile away from the WH or the US capitol.
John Say,
“All protesters – are being kept 1/2 mile away from the DNC – that is unconstitutional.”
Wrong.
Time, place, and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations that the government can impose on expressive activities, such as speech and assembly. These restrictions can limit when, where, or how people can express themselves, but they don’t control what people say or do. The government can make these restrictions as long as they are necessary and don’t violate the First Amendment.
SCOTUS has affirmed this is constitutional. The city did not tell Jewish protesters or others what not to say.
“Protest permits are “MUST ISSUE”
This is long settled constitutional law.”
You don’t cite the law saying protest permits are a “must issue”. Again, government can deny a permit or restrict protests to time, place, and manner.
The pro-Israel groups were given the option of marching a different route or hold a rally at a nearby location. The groups refused.
“If there are resources constraints – the City can limit the time of each groups use of public space.”
Not only time, but also place and thats exactly what they did. They even offered alternative public spaces to exercise their right to protest. Just not the particular place they wanted and that is perfectly legal and constitutional.
“But it MUST allow the protests. And it can not keep them 1/2mile away from the DNC any more than protestors can be kept 1/2 mile away from the WH or the US capitol.”
They did allow the protests. Pro-Israel groups were protesting in locations a mile away. Yes, they CAN keep them a mile, 1/2 a mile, even a 1/4 mile away. It’s perfect legal. Do you even remember Bush’s “free speech zones” held a mile away from events and the RNC? It was perfectly legal then just as it is now.
Funny that they were offered a different route in response to a request that you claimed yesterday was not for the purpose of marching.
Zero credibility. I warned you about those 5 minute google searches.
I’m sure you have it right now though./sarc
“Time, place, and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations that the government can impose on expressive activities, such as speech and assembly. These restrictions can limit when, where, or how people can express themselves, but they don’t control what people say or do. The government can make these restrictions as long as they are necessary and don’t violate the First Amendment.”
While there are minor errors, your remarks are close to correct.
Restrictions MUST be content neutral – both on their face and as applied. Chicago’s were NOT.
You then say that they must be “necescary” that is correct. There is no evidence that the restrictions at the DNC were necescary.
Separately necescary is NOT sufficient.
Always when restricting a constitutional right – but especiallyu when restricting first amendment rights.
Necescary is insufficient. There are ALWAYS many ways to accomplish the same NECESCARY objective.
They must do so in the LEAST INFRINGING way. That is what “narrowly tailored” means.
There is no broad grant of power for time place and manner restrictions.
The opposite is true. Top be constitutional a first amendment rights restriction MUST be a time place or manner restriction – or it is unconstitutional.
That is a requirement, it is the START of constitutional analysis not the end.
It must also be viewpoint neutral – both on its face and in effect.
“SCOTUS has affirmed this is constitutional.”
Incorrect. i provided you a link to the ACLU’s website pages on protestrs rights. Theyt also have pages for all the supreme court decisions and the conclusions of each.
The supreme court has absolutely never found that all time place and mannet restrictions are constitutional.
They have however found that ONLY time place and manner restrictions MAY be constitutional.
Viewpoint restrictions are ALWAYS unconstitutional.
“The city did not tell Jewish protesters or others what not to say.”
They do not have to restrict your ability to say something to violate the first amendment.
As I have noted repeatedly – restricting a group say “jews” to speaking on Sunday nights after 3pm in their showers is unconstitutional
That is a time, place and manner restriction – it is also unconstitutional.
You can not treat different groups of protestors differently based on their viewpoint.
“You don’t cite the law saying protest permits are a “must issue”. Again, government can deny a permit or restrict protests to time, place, and manner.”
Again START at the ACLU website on protests – you can find not only the ACLU’s summary of the law, but if you look hard enough – all the caselaw.
NO Government can not deny permits using time place and manner restrictions. Those are the ONLY restrictions that MAY be constitutional. Time place and manner restrictions are NOT automatically constitutional.
Viewpoint restictions are ALWAYS unconstitutional.
“The pro-Israel groups were given the option of marching a different route or hold a rally at a nearby location. The groups refused.”
Aside from as always being wrong about the facts – they were not given options – they were stalled until there were no options left.
Regardless. that is not how the first amendment works.
Government does not get to tell you what you CAN do. they only get to tell you what you CAN’T do – and often they can not do even that.
“Not only time, but also place and thats exactly what they did.”
You are correct that is what they did. You are incorrect that they can do that.
If a place is limited, Government can NOT restrict access to it based on viewpoint.
Government can NEVER restrict based on viewpoint.
“They even offered alternative public spaces to exercise their right to protest. Just not the particular place they wanted and that is perfectly legal and constitutional.”
If they govenrment makes a space available at all. It can not restrict access based on viewpoint.
“They did allow the protests. Pro-Israel groups were protesting in locations a mile away. Yes, they CAN keep them a mile, 1/2 a mile, even a 1/4 mile away. It’s perfect legal.”
Nope. It is not even legal to keep pro-life protestors 30ft away from clinics.
Again this is decided law.
” Do you even remember Bush’s “free speech zones” held a mile away from events and the RNC? It was perfectly legal then just as it is now.”
I am not here to discuss fake hypotheticals pulled out of the blue. As a rule “free speech zones” are unconstitutional.
If Bush actually did as you claim – that would be unconstitutional – though less so that Chicago.
College Campuses and Cities may NOT have free speech zones. Caselaw already specifies the degree to which first amendment rights must be respected in different spaces.
INSIDE the convention hall – the DNC can decide what speech is allowed and what is not.
There are no first amendment restrictions of any kind on the DNC at their own events.
The same is true of churches, and all other private entities in owned or leased space.
Restrictions on first amendment rights in publicly owned spaces vary based on the purpose of the space.
Regardless, they must ALWAYS be content neutral. More restrictions are allowed in a government office building than on a public street. Less still on parks, less still on govenrment greated public forums – such as the mall in DC, and less still at and in the capital or in front of the WH.
In nearly every 1st amendment case that comes before the courts – one of the first levels of analysis that takes place is the first amendment nature of the place in question.
As an example permits are NOT NECESCARY at all to protest on sidewalks or on streets. But laws precluding obstructing traffic are enforceable. Protestors at pro-life pregnancy centers or abortion clinics can be arrested for preventing people from accessing the building. But they are permitted on sidewalks. Protestors are generally permitted on public streets. But they can not block traffic (that requires a permit – which is MUST ISSUE). Blocking traffic does not as an example mean blocking cars from going down main street.
It means preventing them from getting where they are trying to go to.
Again while there are other sources – the ACLU pages on protests are an excellent starting point – and they will take you to more caselaw than you can handle.
George aside from being pretty much wrong on every point regarding the FACTS,
You also miss the entire point.
It is likely you miss the point because you do not even see the problem.
Unarguably chicago prioritized the free speech rights of some groups over others.
Planned parenthood and reprodictive matters groups got the pole positions – right next to the convention center.
ProHamas groups which democrats did not want to alienate but posed a risk of violence were kept 1/2 mail away.
While Jews were kept a mile away.
I am sure you think this is reasonable. But you are incapable of grasping that this is something government MAY NOT do.
Government can not decide whose voice can be heard and whose can not, nor even whose voice will be favored.
Government can not decide what is fake news, what is misinformation, what is malinformation.
Government can not engage in viewpoint descrimination PERIOD.
It can no more send jews to the back of the bus, than blacks.
It can no more favor women’s reproductive groups than white men.
Government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Democrats can – especially at their own convention.
But the city of Chicago can not – not even if city officials are democrats.
The Nazi Party is cheating as usual:
The Detroit Department of Elections hired 2,000+ more Democrats than Republicans as poll workers for the August primary election, similar to prior elections over the last four years and contrary to state law. That law states that election clerks must “appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party.”
Nearly 80% more Democrats were hired as poll workers for Detroit’s primary election this year compared to Republicans. This stark contrast is a trend that has repeatedly occurred over the last four years in Detroit and happened in Flint in 2022, despite state law requiring nearly equal numbers of poll workers from both political parties.
A total of 2,340 Democrats and 308 Republicans worked the Aug. 6 primary election, according to city data shared with Just the News, which was obtained and reviewed by Michigan Fair Elections (MFE), Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME), and the Michigan Conservative Coalition (MCC). There were 2,827 workers in total, making Republicans just 11% of the workers.
Of the 308 Republicans, MFE identified the voting histories of 143 of them. From the 143, there were 131 who had voted in Democratic primary elections.
In May, the Republican Party provided Detroit with a list of 676 Republican election worker candidates for the August primary election, but the city only hired 52 of them.
You forgot to mention that virtually 100% of the voter fraud that has been found since 2016 has been Republican. Republicans voting twice, Republican election officials breaking the law (Mesa County CO). Fake electors in several states, all republican. Maybe when you hire someone, you should check out what group they belong to and if they belong to a group that has been involved in crime, you might think twice about hiring those people.
Wrong again. Those were the only ones that the MEDIA reported.
Hey Anon
Get out of Vox and The Atlantic
That would be false.
Philadelphia has had an election official convicted of running the same ballot through tabulators in every election for my entire life.
Philadelphia election officials are not republicans.
You say Republicans “broke the law” – meaning LEft wing nut democrats arrested charged and prosecuted republicans for trying to get the evidence of fraud by Democrats. There is no such thing as a “fake electors” the correct legal term is alternate electors and we have had them for more than 150 years. They are legal.
Right now We have Rep Raskin trying to get Congress not to certify the election if Trump wins.
Rasking is free to do that – it is legal. Congress is not required to certify.
Congress has MANY choices:
They can reject the results and toss the election to congress.
They can declare Trump an insurectionist and ineligable – in which Case JD Vance will become president.
They can reject the certification of individual states, and they can select alternate slates of electors from those states – which is what they did in The Harrison election of 1876.
They can reject states entirely – which likely throws the election to congress.
All of these are perfectly constitutional.
I would further note that while there were procedural rules set by previously passed legislation in 2021, and that democrats have since changed those to allegedly prevent what Hillary attempted in 2017 and Trump attempted in 2021.
They can not constitutionally prevent that. The constitution explicitly says the rules by which congress conducts business are up to that specific congress. Congress can not make a law dictating how a future congress acts.
While it is likely that a futre congress will follow the law of prior congresses – there is not and can not be any binding requirement to do so.
Turley has repeatedly argued to both republicans and democrats that they should be very carefully about the use of the impeachment bower and that they should read it very narrowly.
He is absolutely correct that this is what the house SHOULD do.
He is completely wrong that doing otherwise is unconstitutional.
There is no check on the impeachment power of the house except the conviction power of the senate.
And there is no check at all on that.
If you are impeached and removed – you can not appeal to the supreme court arguing that your impeachment was on unconstitutional grounds.
The house CAN impeach for whatever reasons it pleases. It SHOULD only impeach using the narrow criteria in the constitution.
The same is true of congresses power to certify elections.
Mike Pence was completely wrong when he claimed Trump asked him to do something unconstitutional.
The constitution says very little about how the VP must report the election to the congress. The VP can do that task however they please.
And the house and Senate can tell the VP to pound sand if they wish. Congress can not make the process by which congress executes a congressional function legal or illegal. The only binding constraints are in the constitution itself.
That is true for democrats, it is true for republicans.
John Say, you have this all in a muddle.
Rasking is free to do that – it is legal.
No, I don’t think it is.
Congress is not required to certify.
You’re right, but not in the way you mean it. Congress isn’t required to certify anything, nor is it called on to do so. The constitution says not a word about a certification by Congress. All it says is that the votes shall be counted in Congress’s presence. All the congressmen are is witnesses. Eastman was right about that. What he was wrong about is that the VP is also merely a witness. Neither Congress nor the VP have any other role to play.
So what happens when there’s a dispute about the validity of certain electors, as happened in 1877? The answer is that the constitution doesn’t say. The 12th amendment is very poorly drafted. You’d think, OK, whoever is charged with the counting should be the one to decide; if they think a vote is invalid they shouldn’t count it. But the constitution doesn’t say who does the counting!!!! That is just atrocious drafting. How could they not have anticipated that such a question would come up? But they didn’t, so we don’t know.
Congress has MANY choices:
They can reject the results and toss the election to congress.
I see no authority in the constitution for that.
They can declare Trump an insurectionist and ineligable – in which Case JD Vance will become president.
They have no authority to do that either.
They can reject the certification of individual states, and they can select alternate slates of electors from those states – which is what they did in The Harrison election of 1876.
No, they can’t select alternative electors. The alternative electors have to be appointed as the state legislature shall have directed.
They can reject states entirely – which likely throws the election to congress.
Assuming they can reject the votes cast by electors they don’t believe to have been properly appointed, the election would not be thrown to Congress. It would proceed without those electors. If Trump/Vance get 300 electors and all 300 are disqualified, then there are 235 electors left and a majority is 118. Harris/Walz get all 235, which is almost double the required number, and win in a landslide.
ATS all you have done is prove how much of a bubble you live in.
There are many types of election fraud – and they vary depending on many factors – especially demographics.
The least dangerous form of election fraud – is the fraud or individual voters not acting in concert with others.
The guy whose mother dies before the election who fills in her mailin ballot and sends it in.
This type of fraud is most common in suburban areas. Fraud is near nonexistant in rural areas – because everyone knows each others – and they would KNOW that his mother had died.
The most dangerous fraud occurs in urban areas – and the more centralized the handling of ballots, the larger the operation the more opportunity there is for a single person to engage ion large scale fraud.
You say Republicans commit more Fraud. So the half dozen people accross the country – mostly republicans who submitted a mailin ballot for their dead mother are a bigger problem than the one guy in Philadelphia who got caught running the same ballot through the counters over 500 times ? I would note that for every person that gets caught – atleast a dozen are not.
That is true whether we are talking about voting for dead grand mothers or the guys feeding a batch of ballots into a tabulator over and over.
Federal law requires that States purge their voter registration rolls. Nationwide the LOW estimate is about 12M names are on our voter rolls that are dead, fake, non-existant or ineligable.
This federsal law is being ignored in most every state. Republicans have to sue and even then it is rare for courts to order the law followed.
Faulire to do that is illegal and is election fraud – further it enables even more election fraud
PA had 200,000 more ballots than actual voters in 2020. The excess is almost entirely in Philadelphia with maybe 20% in Pittsburgh.
Everywhere else in the state the number of ballots and the number of voters match
That is illegal, it is election fraud and it enables election fraud.
The state of Georgia requires by law a minimum 20% signature match – that is an incredibly low standard.
Since 2020 we have learned that exactly ZERO mailin ballots in Fulton county GA were signature matched
That is a violation of the law, that is election fraud, and it ernables election fraud.
These are just a FEW examples of PROVEN fraud that took place in 2020
PA had 200,000 more ballots than actual voters in 2020.
That does not appear to be true. I’d love to see some evidence for it, but as far as I can tell it comes from a claim by Frank Ryan in early January 2021, which was apparently based on a database that was still being updated, so any data from it was by definition invalid.
In New York the law also requires equal numbers of R and D poll workers, who must work in teams of one each. But there just aren’t enough Republicans to fill all the slots, so a number of Democrats are designated to act as Republicans for the day.
Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Hamas co-founder, Hassan Yousef, has disturbing things to say about his experiences and has dire concerns that the threatening situation in the Middle East and what it portends for greater western civilization will not change until and unless the Islamists are removed from power in Iran. Because of the Islamist dictatorship that rules Iran, and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah most notably, there can be no lasting cease fire and peace so long as Israel and other western cultures exist. Israel is in an ominous place on the frontlines destined to be defending itself ad infinitum against a most frenzied and fanatic foe determined to annihilate it.
Yousef has stated what we already know that the result of the U.S. presidential election will not impact Hamas or Iran’s other proxy groups, who will “hate America – it doesn’t matter who’s in office,” but he does worry about a president who “is not firm enough, not strong enough behind the fundamentals of America.” I would add that it is also quite troubling to witness other American political leaders such as Chicago’s mayor too faltering and too weakened to allow proponents of freedom and democracy the same rights as any who are opposed to freedom and democracy.
https://www.amazon.com/Hamas-America-Unimaginable-Redemption-Opportunity/dp/1637633181?
Ya, weird cult. The members can’t leave.
Jonathan: For someone who disdains politics Michelle Obama knocked the socks of the audience last night at the DNC in Chicago. In her 20″ speech she said everything that needed to be said about the stakes in the election this year. She devoted a portion of her address to DJT’s years of racist demonizing of the Obamas: “For years, Donald Trump did everything in his power to try make people fear us. His limited, narrow view of the world made him feel threatened by the existence of two hardworking, highly educated, successful people who happened to be Black”. What a zinger!
Michelle was followed by Barack. Had I been him I would have gone out on the stage and whispered in his wife’s ear: “Honey, you said every thing I had planned to talk about. How could I possibly add anything?” What was interesting was at the time Michelle was giving her speech Kamala Harris was on her way back from a speech and rally at the same venue where DJT held his “coronation”. The difference was that Harris filled the Forum in Milwaukee!
And what was DJT doing yesterday? He actually held a “rally”, of sorts, in Howell, Michigan (pop: 10,000). The event was held inside, what the press described as a “shiny white garage”, at the sheriff’s office–surrounding by deputies and police vehicles. The purpose of DJT’s press conference was to address “Crime”. DJT attacked Harris’s record on crime saying she is “one of the first Marxist prosecutors in America” and she is “the ringleader of this pro-crime and anti-police crusade”. FACT CHECK: Harris is not a “Marxist”. As a prosecutor in SF and as Cal’s AG she worked closely with police to attack crime. Harris is definitely NOT “anti-police”!
In his speech in Howell DJT also appealed to White suburban women by trying to put fear into them. He said he, and only he, can stop “the plunder, rape, slaughter and destruction of our American suburbs” by immigrants. FACT CHECK: Crime across the country is DOWN. And immigrants proportionately don’t commit more crimes–especially in the suburbs. And the polls show White suburban women overwhelmingly support Harris. DJT calls the polls “fake”. But how does DJT expect to appeal to White women when he engages in overt misogynistic rhetoric, racist attacks on Black women and was instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade? The female vote could be the deciding factor in November–especially in the swing states. DJT is delirious if he thinks his continued personal attacks on Kamala Harris will produce the desired effect. One definition of “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. Need I say more?
Her speech was longer than 20 seconds.
‘ – minutes
” – seconds
Try to get it right, pinhead.
Trump is “‘threatened by the existence of two hardworking, highly educated, successful people who happened to be Black’. What a zinger!”
I think what you mean is: What a lie! Or maybe: What is vicious smear!
Can you, or she, say: Ben Carson — or countless others?
He meant Trump was threatened by them because they are “clean”
Ask Joe.
“hardworking, highly educated, successful people”
or extreme ineligible beneficiaries of the communist welfare state
Well…Trump is comparing himself to Harris. He keeps saying he’s better looking than her. Last time I checked that was not an economic policy. Trump is being weird.
She looks like a horse
Dennis, You may have noticed that Michele Obama’s speech made no mention of any of the Biden/Harris administration’s rather sparse record of accomplishments. Even VP Harris has had to admit that ordinary people are struggling – witness her set of economic proposals. So to your last point, why if the Biden/Harris administration has left people struggling would one vote for, as the party platform so succinctly puts it, the second Biden term? As you say: “One definition of “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. Need I say more?” I could not agree more.
As she spoke denigrating folks who have more than they need, Michelle Obama wore a paired jacket with matching trousers designed and sold by the New York fashion designer Monse for a total of $2,600 plus tax. Is anyone else becoming weary with hypocritic Democratic Party elites who live lives they vilify? I am sure her runway modeling at the DNC convention has wet the appetite and that Monse is becoming overwhelmed with the numbers of pre-orders.
https://monse.com/collections/shop-all-resort-2025
Anyone who in 2024 is surprised to find out that the Democrat Party is the party of antisemitism has been sleeping alongside Rip Van Winkle. Like their communist and Nazi ancestors, Democrats hate Jews because of their success, especially with capitalism. I’m amazed that, after more than a century, this is still not well understood.
I’ve been saying for decades that a vote for Democrats is a vote for Holocaust 2.0. Sadly, Jews didn’t believe it until it happened, and many if not most probably still don’t.
Jews now join groups including black folks and women who, despite every possible bit of evidence available, vote for the party that hates them, and works actively against their vital interests.
The only possible bright side of this is that, eventually, these folks figure out that they are voting for their own destruction and, if they can’t vote for Republicans (for reasons that frankly escape me), they should create a viable third party, and vote for it. Thus, from the depths of their darkness, they would sow the seeds of a better America.
You claim that “Democrats hate Jews”–does that include Kamala’s husband, Doug Emhoff, or Chuck Schumer, Josh Shapiro, Antony Blinkin, Janet Yellen, Alejandro Majorkas, Merrick Garland, Ron Klain or other Jewish politicians and celebrities? Just HOW is the Democratic party “actifely working against” the interests of Jews? Your simplistic analysis assumes that all Jews support whatever Israel does without question–which is not true. A substantial number of Jews, both in Israel and in the US, believe the genocide Israel is commiting against the Palestinian people is wrong, that in the long-run it will only generate more terrorist groups, and that Netanyahu is prolonging the killing both because he hates Palestinians and wants to kill as many of them as possible and also to avoid his own criminal liabilities. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been slaughtered–most of which are women and children. Estimates are that it will take more than 20 years just to rebuild the buildings, schools, hospitals and other structures Israel has destroyed, using American-made bombs and weapons. Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid, and what is it doing with our money and the bombs and weapons–killing Palestinian people, starving chilren, cutting off water, and even preventing outside groups, including America, from bringing in food and medicine to alleviate human suffering. Are you are claiming that it is somehow wrong for people to complain about this misuse of resources? Opposing genocide is not anti-Semitic. The killing needs to stop. Your overwrought claim that Jews voting Democratic is “voting for their own destruction” is just plain wrong–is someone paying you to make this stuff up?
Gigenius
Is someone paying you to look stupid?
The killing will stop when the TERRORISTS release the HOSTAGES.
The killing does not need to stop until they do
The killing will not stop until they do
Get a grip.
* the fighting will stop when they release hostages….
They just 6 hostages—>dead.
No, it won’t. The moslems never stop missile barrage day and night all year and every year.
It’ll never stop until Israel puts a final end to it.
“No, it won’t. The moslems never stop missile barrage day and night all year and every year. It’ll never stop until Israel puts a final end to it.”
A few things written in the Hamas Charter:
—
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.
“‘You claim that “Democrats hate Jews’–does that include {list of Jewish folks}”
Yes, although those people are tolerated because they are “in the fold”. Let one of them come out openly in favor of Israel and you’ll have your answer, although plenty of others have already provided it.
By the way, Josh Shapiro was a far better choice as a running mate than Tim “Blue Falcon” A-Walz. Why wasn’t he selected?
“Just HOW is the Democratic party ‘actifely working against’ the interests of Jews?”
Did you read the above article?
“A substantial number of Jews, both in Israel and in the US, believe the genocide Israel is commiting against the Palestinian people is wrong blah blah”
There is no genocide taking place, even the Brandon Administration admits it. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-we-do-not-believe-genocide-is-occurring-gaza-2024-05-13/
“…Netanyahu is prolonging the killing both because he hates Palestinians and wants to kill as many of them as possible…”
Which is why he keeps agreeing to ceasefire and peace deals? https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/why-israels-critics-stopped-pretending-to-want-a-ceasefire/
“More than 40,000 Palestinians have been slaughtered–most of which are women and children.”
Hamas-generated propaganda numbers that keep getting debunked, including because Hamas insists on counting terrorists in the civilian death toll. fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/06/03/how-the-un-got-away-with-wildly-inflating-the-casualty-numbers-in-gaza-and-the-media-bought-it/
“Estimates are that it will take more than 20 years just to rebuild the buildings, schools, hospitals and other structures Israel has destroyed blah blah”
Perhaps Hamas shouldn’t have broken a ceasefire and slaughtered thousands of innocent, unarmed Israelis? Those lives are lost forever.
“Are you are claiming that it is somehow wrong for people to complain about this misuse of resources?”
No, I’m stating the fact that that helping a close ally of the US defend its people and territory against unprovoked invasions and terrorist attacks is not a misuse of resources.
If you’re worried about the deaths of innocent people, although you’re about 10 months too late arriving at that, perhaps you could persuade your Hamas friends to lay down their arms and surrender. Israel has said that hostilities would end immediately if they did that. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-15/israel-will-only-end-war-in-gaza-with-total-surrender-of-hamas
“The killing needs to stop.”
I agree, feel free to tell your Hamas friends to stop whenever they’re ready.
“Your overwrought claim that Jews voting Democratic is ‘voting for their own destruction’ is just plain wrong…”
Did you read the above article?
“…is someone paying you to make this stuff up?”
I make nothing up, and educate liberals as a public service. Of course, I’d have more success teaching my schnauser to recite Shakespeare, but he doesn’t make me laugh as much.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire Democratic Convention broke out in a hearty rendition of the Horst Wessel Lied.
Or did they? I don’t watch. Maybe I would if they got Leni Riefenstahl back, she understood optics.
They really seem like they are on the verge of changing their name to the National Socialist American Workers Party.
Their supporters often burn the American flag. I wonder what flag they might choose instead?
Interesting comment, thanks. The Dems praise of Biden does sound like Hitler’s praise of Hindenburg as the first soldier of the great war in Triumph of the Will.
Interesting. trump sat on his chair watching “his people” ransack the Capitol Building in the hopes they would succeed in forcing the VP to keep trump in office, or they could kill pence if “his people” so choose. Biden after learning how unpopular he was decided on his own to not seek reelection.
You really want to compare Biden to trump?
Get a grip.
Huh?
I worked on Dempster Street in a business that was owned by a Jewish family during that time. The march was supposed to be on Dempster street right passed where I worked. Thankfully, it got stopped the day before by a court with Alan Durshowitz as attorney. It wad hate speech is not free speech argument. I still know people from Skokie and they are not pleased with the decision today.
That is not true. The march was NOT stopped by any court. On the contrary, the Supreme Court ordered the city to allow it. It was the Nazis themselves who decided to not to march there, because Chicago finally gave them the permit for the site they had originally wanted, so there was no reason for them to shlep all the way to Skokie. The only reason they had applied to Skokie in the first place was because Chicago wasn’t letting them march.
And Dershowitz argued for the Nazis — as he should have, because they were in the right.
Sounds like Turls just wants to give trump a chance to say there very fine people on both sides in ’24.
I don’t blame Chicago at all for not wanting riots on the streets. Turley wants the riots so he can use it to taint the D convention.
Vince R.
Hey Anonymous, are youi afraid to put your name with your dopey remarks? you are a typuical low inmformation talking points person regurgitating the lefts lies. you must be an anti-semite individual with nothing positive to say.
What good would putting a name with a comment do?
Is your brain totally fried?
“I don’t blame Chicago at all for not wanting riots on the streets.”
I don’t either, but why permit those calling for the genocide of the Jews to march? Did you not think of that, anti-Semite?
If Trump did say that, it would be the first time. Even Snopes debunked this nonsense, and yet people like you mindlessly repeat it, because reasons. And I guess you’re fine with viewpoint discrimination on the part of the government as long at it’s your favored view. Just remember, Slappy, that anti-Semites won’t always have the power to suppress views they don’t like.
Here’s the reason given for denying the parade route the pro-Israel group wanted–from Fox News:
“In the rejection letter obtained by Jewish Insider, the city claimed that because the demonstration coincided with the DNC, the IAC’s demonstration would “create public safety issues” due to there not being “sufficient city resources” to “secure an assembly at the location for the dates and times requested.”
The city offered the group an alternative location for the stationary protest at a park two to three blocks away from the United Center on the evening of the final night of the convention. However, the IAC rejected this offer, saying it was too far away from the convention.
The city of Chicago is also embroiled in legal battles with anti-Israel activists who seek to hold their own protests near the convention hall. A coalition of anti-Israel protesters filed a federal lawsuit against the city claiming their First Amendment rights were being violated after officials reportedly blocked their permit requests to march within “sight and sound” of the convention.
Last week, Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office reportedly offered these protesters a route “adjacent” to the United Center where the convention is being held, according to the Chicago Tribune.”
What reason could there be is there for pro-Israel groups to march? They’re already getting more US aid than any other country, including bombs and weapons that they’ve used to kill over 40,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children. Israel cut off water and won’t allow in food or medicine from outside groups, including America. Israel is deliberately starving children, who, if they survive at all, will suffer physical and mental developmental delays. There is no equivalency here–the presece of pro-Israel demonstrators will create safety issues because of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. They were offered an alternative site–but refused it.
Turley’s piece assumes equivalency–that somehow, pro-Israel groups are morally equivalent to those who oppose the genocide Israel is committing against the Palestinian people. There is no equivalency, and the presence of pro-Israel groups would likely spur violence. Chicago has the right to decide the extent to which it has the resources to assure public safety. It’s hard to argue with their reasoning, and they did offer an alternative.
“
They were denied a permit to march
Period
They were denied a permit to march at the location of their choosing for public safety reasons. They were offered an alternative. Period.
They were denied a permit to march. Period.
^^^^^^^ 😂
I told you he would be back today when puppet Oliver was gone.
I am a little confused. Is that the Nazi Party Convention or the Democrat Convention? It’s confusing when anti-Semitic groups are permitted to march at the DNC, but Jewish groups are prohibited. What do the Democrats say? The mayor of Chicago is a Democrat, so I guess he told us Democrats don’t want Jews around.
Previously, I called for solid Republican votes for all candidates because I wanted The Democrats to be forced to reorganize under a party that would be familiar to JFK. I was wrong. We need to destroy the Nazi Party that is now in Chicago. The Democrat Party no longer exists.
WWTD – What Will Turley Do, SMeyer? I can’t imagine him not voting for Team Blue no matter how much they cross his sensibilities.
* Meyer, it’s good to know the enemy within.
You go DNC! Got those IDs in the cloud.
Opposition to the genocide Israel is committing against the Palestinian people is not anti Semitism. Genocide is wrong. Starving women and children is wrong. Refusing to allow outside groups to provide food and water and medical supplies to homeless, injured and starving people is wrong. That’s what the protests are about— not blind anti- Semitism. Israel has no license to kill indiscriminately under the rubric of “defending itself “. The mostly women and children who have been killed and are being starved are not Hamas.
Crazy lady, when it comes to the situation in Gaza, you are doorknob dumb. You live in a pool of stupid people who are fed garbage, and you believe it. You refuse to look at the history, the law, and the agreements violated by the Islamists.
Why, with all the money from all over the world sent to Gaza, haven’t they handled their problems? Israel pulled out their settlers and army from Gaza, so the Gazans had free will, which only produced rockets from Gaza into Israel so Hamas could kill Israeli women and children. There is no starvation, and the limited supply of food is because Hamas takes it from the aid sent into Gaza. How can they have adequate water when Hamas digs up the pipes to create rockets that kill women and children? Why did Israel have to fight to protect Shifra Hospital and bring in generators to protect the Gazan patients?
Why does Hamas use women and children for shields and brag about it? Why does the Hamas Covenant state their intention to wipe out all the Jews?
Start using your brain and start looking at history and the previous lies created by the Islamists. There is enough documentation to show Israel has been a good neighbor, but anti-Semites don’t want to avail themselves of such information. That is why one knows they are anti-Semites.
If you want to look for real genocide, look at the Sudan and all the other nations where genocide occurred. There would be genocide of the Jews if they couldn’t protect themselves.
* 8:14 A.M.
The most repeated grievance in comments is—> why are the Jewish people still voting Democrat.
Anyone care to answer that?
Fyi
“Anyone care to answer that?”
In part because American Jews (as opposed to American Israelis) have for over a century sympathized with the “underdog,” the “outsiders,” the “downtrodden,” the “victims of the system” — which they saw as the poor, those in labor unions, those (allegedly) denied civil rights.
Whether true or not, since 1900, democrat/socialist/progressive policies claim to help those groups.
There’s a twist on on old joke (told by a *Jewish* commentator): Jews make money like Midas. And vote like progressives.
Recent report by Pew Research (April 9, 2024) “Changing Partisan Coalitions in a Politically Divided Nation” … Jews currently lean 70/30 Democrat/Republican. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/party-identification-among-religious-groups-and-religiously-unaffiliated-voters/
Thanks to the Pro Palestinian wing of the Democratic party, we now know that killing Jews is popular once again on college campuses. Who knew ? The Fourth Reich may not be dead after all Jonathan.
Worth the reemphasis from Turley’s message: “The one thing that organizers cannot abide in a celebration of constitutional freedom is the actual exercise of those freedoms by unpopular groups.”
I truly cannot understand how ANY Jew could support the democrat party and this particularly refers to chuck schumer and the cackle’s husband. Have they no moral core?
As JT has pointed out repeatedly, the Dem leadership isn’t very concerned about free speech/1st Amend. Presumably they believe supporting the Palestinian aligned folks is a net positive for election day, even at the expense of losing some Jewish votes. It would be interesting to more fully analyze the political calculus going on here to see how much leeway they have along the Jewish/Palestinian axis. In particular, among US voters how many are Jewish, how many are strong Israel supporters, how many are Muslim, and how many are strongly Pro-Palestinian?