Posted on 09/22/2024 1:26:53 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
So I was just interested in how far you would go to defend people having their rights ripped from them by petty tyrants in spaces they pay for.
And the answer is apparently all the way, Roscoe.
“Oh, This is a setup so she can hire an attorney to sue the city”
Maybe... so maybe the Mayor and the police should have let her say what she wanted for 3 minutes. Now they are getting it shoved down their throats. Their rules are filled with direct violations of well developed Supreme Court case law. “No profanity”, “only on one topic”, “must observe polite decorum”, etc.
But maybe they want to lose in court. They should have listened to her for 3 minutes then forgotten her words. Now they get to buy her a house.
Let me restate the obvious.
When you agree to certain standards. In a private environment or in a public meeting and you violate those standards you agreed to...
You have no standing.
“They have to tolerate them for the allotted 3 minutes or whatever.”
Explain yourself.
If Karen here refused to shut up and sit down after her “allotted 3 minutes” what should the council do?
Listen to her idiot ravings all night? Of course not. So if it’s OK for the city to enforce an “allotted 3 minute” rule, then it’s OK for them to enforce rules against disruptive behaviors.
“I also suggest you watch the video. Watch where the mayor told her...” This is what you agreed to...”
That is the boiler plate the city manager put in as conditional. It is illegal under decades long free speech rules the Supreme Court has put out in multiple cases.
No matter what the Mayor parroted, it is as illegal as something on a form saying if you speak, you agree you may be beaten by a cop if you are rude. It’s an illegal covenant and is unenforceable...even if the mayor says so. LOL
So you agree that Karen here was a petty tyrant in a space she paid for. Good
So yes, I'll defend people (the city council) who are having their rights ripped away from this petty tyrant.
I'm glad we're on the same page as you see the facts.
She’s going to win a Federal Court settlement big enough to buy a decent house. Violation of her civil rights, and false arrest under color of law.
The words of the mayor were enforcing unconstitutional orders. He may as well have ordered her to lift her shirt and show her boobs to be able to speak. Just as unenforceable.
She may be an idiot for all I know and wrong about what she’s saying in the meeting. That’s fine with me, the Fuhrer Mayor will find out.... and you too if you keep up with the developments.
She’s going to win a Federal Court settlement big enough to buy a decent house. Violation of her civil rights, and false arrest under color of law.
______________________________________________
Quit your love fest long enough with this Karen to show me here or there where she was arrested.
She wasn’t in trouble for a time limit violation. The Mayor said the rules she agreed to do not allow criticizing the City Attorney.
A contract demanding a law violation is not enforceable. No matter what the mayor says, forcing people to sign an illegal agreement before they can speak is not enforceable.
Me might as well have demanded speakers only wear blue shirts in order to speak.
When the cop detained her by grabbing her and forcing her to go with him. Whether you know it or not, that is an arrest in the legal sense. Whether or not she was later ultimately charged with a crime is irrelevant.
That is the law in Federal Court. And that he did so while following an illegal order makes it worse.
Two or three years from now, she’s getting a nice house compliments of the mayor.
A violation is a violation is a violation.
Tell me the difference from being forced to adhere to a 3 minute rule or being forced to adhere to a rule prohibiting criticisms against a city attorney.
Why would you be OK if she ranted on all night long hours and hours over here allotted 3 minutes?
I asked if she was arrested. The video simply states she was escorted out.
There’s a big difference there, ya know.
But I went and found she was arrested.....
Massie was charged with trespassing, resisting arrest and obstructing government operations.
I also found where a civil rights group is bankrolling support for her.
I say all this to state my disbelief that FReepers would support a Karen who’s primary objective was met when she was escorted out, and my disbelief that FReepers would be on the same side as some liberal civil rights group.
I also will say this. Not to you personally Rhino, but if this Karen here was a black woman, there would be hundreds of replies here at FR denigrating her for being another Angry Black Woman with an attitude. Don’t believe that? It would not take 5 minutes to find a thread about Sh’Wanda acting out in the same way this Karen did. And you know what they average reply would be:
“Is it them, Yogi?”
So I put out this question: If it’s not OK to tolerate this misbehavior from a black woman, why is it OK to tolerate this from a white woman?
I’m still searching that pesky constitution thingie, and can’t find the part where the government was granted the power to restrict your speech....
I know some of this business, as I spoke at a group where many Surprise residents were there and explained the whole thing to me.
*The woman has had a running battle with one of the council members for a very long time.
*The bylaws say that you may speak in any meeting, but cannot accuse people by name. She violated that.
*The people I spoke to were sympathetic to her concerns about the person in question, but all admitted she was out of line and not within the rules to make the statements she did.
Read the thread.
Her arrest had nothing to do with her freedom of speech.
I don’t know how you can be so wrong about this.
They asked her to self-censor before she even began speaking.
A City Council Meeting is a public gathering specifically for the redress of grievances.
They have no legal right to say, “You can talk about this, but you can’t talk about that,” or, “You can say complimentary things, but not disparaging things.”
She was removed and detained for what she was saying.
Back at ya since you can't answer these points:
They asked her to self-censor before she even began speaking.
And she agreed to their request.
A City Council Meeting is a public gathering specifically for the redress of grievances.
Seriously? Specifically for the redress of grievances? Not to conduct city business in an orderly and decent fashion, but specifically designed to let loudmouth Karens act out in public?
They have no legal right to say, “You can talk about this, but you can’t talk about that,” or, “You can say complimentary things, but not disparaging things.”
They have a legal right to say you are allotted 3 minutes to speak. Why can't they say you can not use abusive language?
Fixed it for you.
The politicos don’t care. The money will come from the taxpayers if she wins in court.
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.