ignoring pmya's good point
As noted, Mattvision took this to US events. I responded to that.
where does the first amendment say anything about a public place
Anything not private property is public. Every time, the results of such legal issues binds all public places with Constitutional laws since the premise is that private property is not state property. To that point, I can carry any kind of weapon I want on my own private property and so can anyone else (on my property) until I tell them otherwise. There's a totally different treatment between public and private.
im surprised to hear you consider anything thats not a peaceful assembly is violence
Well, if it's not peaceful...
Look at it this way... harassing someone is (in the US, if we're nitpicking) considered violence and is prosecuted as such. It doesn't matter if all you're doing is driving by their house and calling them vile names every day or just showing up at their workplace for 5 minutes so you can make 15 seconds of eye contact. It's harassment. Since harassment is considered violence, Maxine Waters did a call to violence when she called on everyone to harass the Trump administration. Since that's violence with a political or social agenda, it is terrorism. That there is codified into law, by the way... doesn't matter if it's person or property, politician or public.
Peaceful assembly is getting together to talk, standing and holding signs (if on private property then with permission, if public then not impeding people or business), chanting slogans, and so on. Anything else is not peaceful assembly.
im surprised to hear you consider
Lots about me.... like wasting someone's time is theft. But that's another discussion.
im still not sure where you are getting your opinion on violence from. to my knowledge only certain kinds of harrassment would be considered violent and thats any that implies a threat of physical aggression. i guess by your example you might also consider trump's refusal to acknowledge obama as a US citizen violent harassment and terrorism. i'm curious where you draw the line between free speech and terrorism. i also dont get where this right to not be impeded in public is coming from. as long as a protest isnt threatening in nature the first amendment pretty well allows them to sit in the middle of a street or whatever rankles you so.
one only wastes their own time, another person cant waste it.
*i should amend that last statement to add that only a government official has the authority to waste someone's time.
It's all defined in laws. Here's California as an example
where you are getting your opinion on violence from
Non-injury (not just physical). More ancient precept. With the exception of trolling online for a very specific purpose, I hold to that as best as I can manage. I fail. A lot. Doesn't mean I don't try.
I think the rest of your questions can be answered through the lens of non-injury.
right to not be impeded in public is coming from
Well, first, non-inury. Does it cause a loss of income or business either to a business or a private citizen? If it does, it's not peaceful because that's a form of injury which you can seek legal recourse.
Second, very specifically:
Examples of laws which limit freedom of assembly are found in various riot acts, unlawful assembly laws, and ordinances prohibiting the blocking of sidewalks.
the first amendment pretty well allows them to sit in the middle of a street or whatever rankles you so.
Absolutely wrong.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/the-right-to-gather-has-some-restrictions.html
Police routinely arrest protestors who block traffic in freeways or bridges. That’s generally allowed, because maintaining public safety involves keeping streets open and traffic moving.
another person cant waste it.
I absolutely can waste your time. Easily. I can destroy uninsured property you own. I can damage something difficult to replace that you must have. To replace it, you must spend time looking for it and then, since you trade your time for money, waste even more "time" buy purchasing it. I can hide something of yours or on your property (maybe spill a bunch of oil or antifreeze in your yard) causing you to look for it.
It is extremely easy to waste another person's time.
only a government official has the authority to waste someone's time
Theft of something which cannot be replaced is not appropriate in any way.
As noted, Mattvision took this to US events. I responded to that.
Looks like you responded to the wrong post.
Just to clarify, I was using those as examples to compare your definition of rioting. There aren't many easy examples in the UK like there are in the US. I wasn't conflating UK legislation with US events, hence my last line about the UK already being too much of an authoritarian dump anyway.
Since harassment is considered violence, Maxine Waters did a call to violence when she called on everyone to harass the Trump administration.
Careful where you tread buddy. What you're suggesting is dangerously close to making it illegal to criticize politicians. Putting the law aside, if you're going to put yourself in a position of ruling over 328 million people and making decisions that could shatter their livelihoods on a whim, then you better at least have a thick enough skin to deal with what they have to say, and how often they decide to say it.
From your perspective, the first amendment only applies on public property, right? I can absolutely agree with that, as you said, public property and private property can't be treated the same. But if that's the case, shouldn't we extend that to public citizens/government actors as well? Harassing an elected politician is not the same as harassing a regular person, for the exact same reason that protesting on public property is not the same as protesting at someone's house without their consent.
What you're suggesting is
Ain't no suggesting. She literally broke the law, incited violence with a political agenda. That's straight up terrorism.
ignoring pmya's good point about this being a /s/unitedkingom post, where does the first amendment say anything about a public place? im not reading anything about it needing to be in a public place. that does not apply. if anything you are providing a strong counter point to your own point. im surprised to hear you consider anything thats not a peaceful assembly is violence. i think that opens more doors than you might have thought when typing it.