You mean it wasn't a simply fabulous event?
Posted on 05/19/2004 8:48:55 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Americans have the right to peacefully assemble. Once rock throwing has commenced, by definition it is not a peaceful assembly and that right is not applicible.
However no rocks were thrown in the case I gave you, or in the case in this thread's article. In fact, there was no non-peaceful activity whatsoever in either case. The sole characteristic of those who were arrested or threatened with arrest was a dissenting opinion, and you know it.
Far too often when two sides are allowed near each other it got violent
The past actions of others is not a legitimate cause for prior restraint of an unalienable right. If it were, not a single right would remain. Indeed, it is this "collective right" arguement that is the core of gun control: "some people have shot others, so no one should own a gun".
Nothing could be further from the truth than this statement. They have been given a special classification as a "minority", and they have many other rights that most of us don't enjoy. Don't have time to elaborate, but I'm sure you know them all anyway.
So, am I to understand you support the homosexual movement going forward with as little opposition as possible?
Are you gay?
The point I was trying to make was... if protesters cannot protest someone you like because "time place and manner" restrictions" are abused, then you will not be able to protest those you don't like. Gay, straight, black, white, green, it makes no difference. Once the precedent has been set, it will be applied to all.
Yes they do have the right to peacably assemble, but there are groups out there that when confronted with each other won't be peacable. Those groups need to be seperated by more than the groups that can be trusted to keep it peaceful. But we've entered a zero tolerance phase of legal interpretation, we no longer want cops making judgement calls, so they're no longer allowed to say groups A and B won't get violent so we can let them near each other but groups X and Y are nuts and can't be within line of sight of each other. If X and Y get word that A and B were treated differently they'll sue, so now everybody gets treated the same and nobody is allowed to hold their counter protest close enough where it could turn confrontational.
This isn't a collective right argument. It's an argument based on what the First Ammendment ACTUALLY SAYS. It doesn't say you have a right to shout down your opponents, it doesn't even say you have a right to be anywhere near your opponents. Place time and audience are, once again, just like last week, not part of your right to free speech.
No you are not to understand that. It's a simple matter of equal application under the law, this has nothing to do with who the two sides are and everything to do with the fact that there were two sides.
My wife says I'm straight. Don't confuse the message of the protesters with the application of the law. Seperating the sides is well established as a legitimate safety action, regardless of who the sides are. This would be just as legitimate if the march were some Christian festival and the arrested counter protesters were gay pride wierdos (why are they always so wierd when they start marching).
Then you say: "It's an argument based on what the First Ammendment ACTUALLY SAYS"
"Legal interpretation" directly implies that the 1st Amendment has been recently intrepreted differently than it used to be, then you claim to be using a constructionist argument. So which is it?
Here's "what the First Ammendment ACTUALLY SAYS":
"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."
Notice the language used. It is not outright banning speech, as you say, that is prohibited. Far from it, abridgement of free speech, the press, free assembly and petition is explicitly prohibited.
That means it cannot be curtailed, or infringed upon, period.
Now I will not be unreasonable and say that all free assemblies cannot have any restrictions. Assemblies should not disrupt traffic or become violent for example. And that is the origin of "time place and manner" restraints. But predictibly, government abused this power, like all others, to go outside what the law was intended to do and curtail behavior it simply doesn't like. Perhaps government cannot be trusted to determine "time place and manner" restrictions, and they should be done away with altogether.
What are you 15? Do you not understand that if there comes a point where your rights and the rights of others, including the rights of people who hold public office collide, the winner is the one who's safety may be at risk. Presidents don't give up the right to life when they assume office. Your worship of freeee speech doesn't mean that everyone else recognizes that the right to whine eclipses the right to personal safety
I see you're still clinging to the absurd notion that the removal of protesters had anything to do with safety or security.
I see you're still clinging to the absurd notion that the removal of protesters has nothing to do with safety or security.
Who is the more obvious threat? The khaki clad Bush supporter or the anti? If my job is to protect the president, I move the anti and watch the Bushie.
Your right to whine doesn't trump the safety concerns of our President, democrat of republican. Get over it.
Some people in the SS used to agree with you. And because of it, John Hinckley was able to put a bullet in Ronald Reagan while posing as a supporter.
So much for that theory. By example, protesters and supporters pose similar threats. Yet supporters are allowed to remain, thus proving that the simple precense of onlookers has not been judged a credible threat. Thus it is objectively demonstrated that protesters are removed for political reasons only.
I really find it hard to believe that you lack the mental sophistication to understand that someone with an alterior motive could pose as a supporter to gain proximity, especially given what happened to Reagan, and Lincoln for that matter.
Your theory has a hole big enough to drive a truck through.
That's not what it implies at all. The interpretations are how the 1st and the 14th interact with each other. We no longer allow cops to make judgement calls, we're applying the 14th ammendment with brutal efficiency, if any two sides get seperated then ALL two sides get seperated. Since the 1st ammendment doesn't garauntee the right to confront your opposition there's no violation of the 1st ammendment in seperating them far apart.
Nobody is being abridged, they're being seperated. Like I said there's give and take, what you have to give is the other side an opportunity to speak without you harrasing them, what you take is the exact same opportunity. Everybody gets their free speech, but nobody gets annoy the other side. Not one single violation of the First.
If you don't think government can be trusted with that then I recommend you get another ammendment ratified. As it stands there's nothing in the Constitution or Ammendments that says the government can't put reasonable restrictions on time place and manner, hence why things like are not a violation of the Constitution. If you want it to say something else the means have been made available to you, go right ahead, I might even sign it.
Confinement to a designated "free speech zone" to the exclusion of all other local vicinities most certainly is an abridgement.
Once again we'll have to agree to disagree about the scope of the 1st Amendment.
they still get to make their speech, it's not abridgement. Once again we will not agree to disagree because that entertains the possibility that you might be right, and since there is no possibility of that there can be no agreement, as long as you keep bandying about this silly interpretation of the First Ammendment that everybody with a protest sign muyst be allowed to wave it where ever they want you will be wrong and I will point it out. Place, time and audience are not in the First Ammendment.
bttt
Very well then. See you on the free speech threads.
If you're interested in our Heros in Blue I'd be more then happy to help you out. There are plenty of stories every day.
"What has become of our country?
Is there still something called the Bill of Rights, or has that been abolished by the senescent, drug-addled jurists who currently run every waking moment of our lives?"
To grant the homosexuals the "rights" they demand, our rights of free speech, assembly, and religion must be curtailed. Canada has already legislated that criticism of constitutes homosexuality "hate speech", which presumably includes Biblically based sermons against the homosexual lifestyle.
Never before has our country offered such freedom from criticism as a "right".
If this is true, then we no longer are governed by the constitution. Zero-tolerance is garbage in first grade, and is worse in this situation. Under these rules, a homeowner or businessman may be deprived of use of his property by any group that gets a parade permit?
In terms of proof, I used the word "if" a couple of times myself due to the lack of specific facts to back up the assertions. I'm afraid I find your assertions, also made without factual data from the municipality involved, not convincing.
Even if your interpretation of the underpinnings of the actions in this case is accurate, I still believe that the municipality has erred at least once, and probably twice.
Anyone who doesn't understand that should not be admitted to the Bar, let alone allowed to practice law and potentially, decide the fate of our most precious, sacred document, the Constitution of the United States of America.
You mean it wasn't a simply fabulous event?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.