Michigan synagogue member sues anti-Israel protesters, city

AP ^ | 12 25 2019 | Staff

[Mi-kha-el]

And you know full well what constitutes “in your face” when it concerns your face.

[ml/nj]

And as long as speakers don't prevent anyone from getting from one place to another, they are within their First Amendment rights to speak there.

Says who? Our notion of free speech and free press comes from England. In London, at least, they have a "Speakers' Corner" in Hyde Park. That's where people are free to say whatever they want. Other places, not so much.

ML/NJ

[MarMema]

Ann Arbor sux. Good for this man!

[NobleFree]

There is also no "right" to not be "bothered". It's liberals who invent fictitious "rights" - we American conservatives don't play that.

[NobleFree]

Our notion of free speech and free press comes from England. In London, at least, they have a "Speakers' Corner" in Hyde Park.

We don't have to ape England - we have a written Constitution, complete with a First Amendment.

[NobleFree]

From the article:

“The lawsuit likely faces major hurdles. Federal courts have typically extended First Amendment protections widely, including to the most provocative and offensive speech. It’s among the legal issues where there is significant consensus among judges with otherwise contrasting interpretations of the Constitution.”

[ml/nj]

What exactly constitutes 'in your face'?

In-your-face (my-face, really )is when someone goes specifically to a place because he believes I (or others like me) will be there. There might be some justification for this if I were a public figure, but I am not.

I have a right to go PEACEFULLY on my way.

ML/NJ

[rbg81]

I don’t like the harassment element but I also don’t like the idea of restrictions on the 1st and free speech.

---

Gee...how long do you think the Authorities would tolerate this if Jews were protesting outside a Mosque?

[rbg81]

Go protest outside a mosque, see what happens. But a church or a synagogue are OK, I guess.

---

Bingo!!

[captain_dave]

Why are they protesting at a synagogue? Because of the assumption a synagogue represents Israel and that all Jews are Israelis, and that everything Israeli is Jewish. If they want to protest against Israel, protest at the Israeli embassy, not at a synagogue. That is why this is harassment.

[NobleFree]

I have a right to go PEACEFULLY on my way.

No you don't; it's liberals who invent fictitious "rights" - we American conservatives don't play that.

[ml/nj]

The lawsuit likely faces major hurdles. Federal courts have typically extended First Amendment protections widely, including to the most provocative and offensive speech.

Extended is the key word here.

I don't object to "provocative and offensive speech" as long as the persons doing such don't choose the site for said speech where they think or know I might be.

I DO NOT have to listen to their "free speech."

ML/NJ

[NobleFree]

If you can cite, say, Justices Scalia or Thomas, or the Heritage Foundation, in support of your claims, they'll have some credence. As it stands, you seem to be simply inventing "rights" as the liberals do.

[Mi-kha-el]

Restriction warrant.

[NobleFree]

What’s that? Google says nothing obviously relevant.

[NobleFree]

Stalking is directed at a specific person - not relevant to the situation under discussion.

[Eleutheria5]

I don’t see the lawsuit going very far, though I sympathize. If they had attacked people or broken windows, you’d have some damage. But just standing vigil and shouting nasty stuff doesn’t strike me as a recoverable cause of action.

[NobleFree]

Their legal argument is very thin: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6592548-Synagogue-protesters-lawsuit.html

[rmlew]

If permitting is needed for protests of some form but there is a special standard in protesting against Jewish and Israeli institutions in Dearbornistan, then what we have is a capricious of abuse of power used against Jews. Either there are restrictions applied equally, or there are none.