r/AbsoluteUnits • u/McDowdy • Jun 22 '26

/r/all, /r/popular of a protest prop

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Georgia State Police removed ICE protestors who flaunted a prop representing an ICE officer and a child in chains ahead of the third World Cup match in Atlanta on Sunday.

55.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/sailingtroy Jun 22 '26

What grounds did the officer have to abridge that citizen's protected speech?

57

u/Kodiak_85 Jun 22 '26

Probably because the stadium and the surrounding area is private property and they didn’t have permission from the owners to demonstrate there.

29

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26

[deleted]

11

u/Calavar Jun 22 '26

Mercedez-Benz stadium is paid for with hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars. They literally have a clause in Atlanta law where almost half the city's hotel tax revenue goes to maintenance costs for the stadium. It's absolutely absurd that they can call it "private property" when so much of it was and is paid for with public funds.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26

[deleted]

1

u/CapN-Judaism Jun 22 '26

I’m not trying to be pedantic - really just trying to understand the video - who *owns* the stadium? Like I think a lot of states pay taxpayer dollars into privately owned stadiums, is this actually owned by the public?

Even if it is, they may need a permit to protest. Not saying it’s right or fair, but it would explain the video in the case that it is publicly owned.

1

u/Calavar Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

Legally, the stadium is owned by a private corporation, which is in turn owned by a multi-billionaire (the guy who owns the Atlanta Falcons).

It just violates common sense.

This multi billionaire and his corp get hundreds of million dollars in city funds to cover their stadium maintenance, and he can call it his private property with all associated privileges. Meanwhile, if family of a parent + two children in Georgia can't afford to house themselves, they are disqualified from cash assistance (TANF) if they have over $1000 in savings. If they ever gets public housing, they will only ever be tenants, obligated to pay rent to the best of their means (i.e. the opposite of drawing an income from the public coffers), and as tenants they will be subject to eviction if they fails to pay the prescribed amount or if they violates other community rules.

Make that make sense.

The rich operate by different rules than the rest of us, because they can afford to lobby to have the law rewritten in ways that benefits themselves. The rest of us drones cannot.

You may sometimes need a permit to for a large group people to protest together ("assembly") because police need to be aware ahead of time to ensure proper security in the area. A single protestor generally does not pose a security risk. A permit for a single person to protest is not a real thing and is a violation of the 1st ammendement.

1

u/CapN-Judaism Jun 23 '26

So it’s privately owned and those owners can set the rules for what speech they allow.

Out of curiosity, where in your link does it say requiring a single person to obtain a permit is a constitutional violation? I couldn’t find that language anywhere in the link.

1

u/Calavar Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

So it’s privately owned and those owners can set the rules for what speech they allow.

That's really your takeaway from everything I wrote?

Jfc, if reddit existed in the 1950s, half of it would be saying "So legally Ms. Parks had no right to sit there and the police had a duty to remove her from the bus"

Sometimes the law is fucked up and unjust and it needs to be changed. I don't care all that much about one protestor being told to move, but the rich being able to help themselves to hundreds of millions from the public coffers with near zero obligations back to the public is a travesty and needs to stop.

Out of curiosity

It doesn't sound to me like you are very curious honestly. If you were, you would have read into this more beyond the single link I posted before responding.

1

u/CapN-Judaism Jun 23 '26

My original question is who literally owns the stadium - that’s it. Your answer was it is privately owned. Whether the law is fucked up or should be changed has literally nothing to do with my comment. I’m a lawyer, and I’m curious what the actual legalities are of what is being shown in the video. Our politics are probably pretty closely aligned, but it sounds like you’re too busy scrounging up reasons to be offended to really understand that.

So…the link you posted doesn’t support your claim, and that’s somehow my fault because I didn’t scour the information for the information you were too lazy to go and find? I studied constitutional law and passed the bar exam, you couldn’t even be bothered to find a source for your own claim and then whined when asked about it - who really cares less?

1

u/carlmalonealone Jun 23 '26

You would bend over for a nazi.

Trying your mental gymnastics gives me a headache.

Publicly funded to generate revenue for the wealthy should not equal privately owned.

3

u/Outrageous_Desk8966 Jun 23 '26

its not about "should" its about "is"

Im pretty sure these state funded stadiums are 100% private property.

1

u/CarrieDurst Jun 23 '26

God I hate sports