Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (140576)	7/16/2004 10:11:34 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It is the initial provocation that creates the problem, and the anticipation of fighting words. The ordinances were not arbitrary, but a response to a particular situation. If civil disorder of the magnitude you describe were anticipated, then I think the state would have the right to cancel a permit. However, I do not find it plausible that a venue could not be found with adequate control of crowds to prevent a general melee, and therefore I doubt that a general law could be vindicated. Perhaps Skokie was remiss in not seeking help. However, no one ever offered it, even after the state courts were ready to compel the issuance of the permit. I do not know what the state of law is on conspiracy, but I would not be averse to prosecuting pro- life groups that seem to exist to commit domestic terrorism, if the case is viable.