Louisiana: Permit Fees for Free Speech?
Posted 12 years ago on June 26, 2012, 10:28 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
The following speech was given by Justin Warren of Occupy The Stage. Justin is currently behind bars for making this speech on the steps of the Louisiana state capitol without purchasing a permit. See below for more information and find out how you can lend your support!
Ladies and Gentlemen, my fellow free peoples of the world. Our governing bodies in their current state have proven themselves ineffective within regards to the interests of the common man. The beautiful ideal that was Democracy has been perverted and totally replaced by the repugnant and relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar, Capitalism. For our entire lives we have been fed lies that lead us to assume such absurdities as the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and there is simply nothing to be done about it. We are told our fates will be better off in the hands of soulless, faceless, and socially irresponsible corporations.
We're told cutting education and expanding our prison systems are the sure fire treatments of our social ills. The heart of Democracy now has more people in prison per capita than any other nation in the world. And we are told this is the land of the free.
Through the lobbying system, corporations have been able to not just influence, but completely hijack our government. We have been stripped of our liberties, we have been stripped of our property, we have been robbed of our freedom.
Now, a growing number of people around the world are waking up to the realization that we simply have nothing left to lose. All over the world people are standing up and shrugging of the authority of their oppressors.
We are bearing witness the single greatest social correction the world has ever known, and it's about damned time.
All throughout history the ebb and flow of elitist tyranny, and the social correction of massive upheaval has been a constant. This time however we have the ingredients to get it right. At this height of our technological advancement, we must, for the sake of our own prosperity, get it right.
To all the social parasites and those that hold dear the absurd and repugnant: There is a really big storm coming, and your god may be the only one to forgive your transgressions.
Occupy The Stage founder, Justin Warren is being held at Orleans Parish Prison on a warrant he didn't know existed and today faces impending transfer to Baton Rouge. Justin Warren has a voice that can carry and be heard over the din of city streets. His key voice at assemblies and protests in the occupy community has demonstrated his dedication as an advocate of freedom of speech. The charges he is facing are for allegedly disturbing the peace on the steps of the capitol building in Baton Rouge. On the 12th of March, he was in Baton Rouge with Occupy The Stage, Occupy NOLA and Occupy Baton Rouge for the opening of the 2012 session of the Louisiana Legislature that included a protest against budget cuts in education.
He was making a speech when an officer approached him and attempted to silence him. He continued exercising his First Amendment rights and was then approached by several officers who attempted to grab him from behind. However, he slipped out of his jacket and left the steps of the State Capitol.
After he departed, Officer Holman (badge # 6071) said on camera that Justin was no longer disturbing the peace and would not be arrested. (see min 1:40 here: http://youtu.be/86OSs6YmM8s)
When questioned as to why Louisiana State Police were interfering with Justin's First Amendment rights, Officer Holman replied that he was speaking without a permit. Apparently, The Tea Party had scheduled a separate event in the same area, and they were not approached by the police because they had bought said permit. The New Orleans protesters did not have a permit, nor did they need one according to The Bill of Rights. Occupy movements across the country continue to battle relentless attacks on free speech and assembly, which are assured to all citizens by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The warrant and the ensuing transfer to Baton Rouge are obviously a ridiculous waste of taxpayers' money. No citizen should need a permit to exercise freedom of speech in the State of Louisiana. Public spaces, including the steps of the capitol building, are protest points where free speech has been exercised for decades.
It appears that the steps of the State Capitol are currently off limits to free speech unless you are able to buy your way onto them.
Justin Warren needs to be released and compensated for his loss of income while being held for no justifiable reason.
In Solidarity,
Occupy NOLA
www.occupynola.net
Standing on the statehouse steps making a speech is the quintessential example of speech that our forefathers wanted to protect when they created the first amendment. They especially wanted to protect controversial speeches.
The first amendment was not created to protect acceptable speech. You don't need an amendment for that. The first amendment was created to protect unwanted speech, especially unwanted by the government.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" relates to a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Justice Holmes who created the analogy later began to doubt his decision due to criticism received from free speech activists and reading "Freedom of Speech in Wartime". It is during times of war or terror that people are most accepting in having their natural rights violated.
In my opinion, it was one of the worst Supreme court decisions of all time made during one of the worst times in our history when our rights were severely violated. The next year the Sedition Act was created and signed by none other than our most Progressive president Woodrow Wilson. The worst Act ever created by our government. More than 2,000 prosecutions occurred under the original and amended Espionage Act. They were finally both repealed in 1921
So you can shout fire in a crowded theater but that is not the main point. Protecting speech on the statehouse steps is the exact intention of the first amendment.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." -- Benjamin Franklin
The part that you're ignoring is that your free speech rights are not absolute. They can be limited when they infringe on my rights. If you're monopolizing public space in order to compel me to listen to a message that I don't want to hear, then you're interfering with my right to use public space. We both have rights that need to be protected. Not just you when you're speaking. The Supreme Court debated that conflict in many cases that occurred long after the Espionage Act was long dead. Many of them are cited on this page.
Don't politicians do that all the time? They occupy public space constantly during their campaigns. They do not and cannot "force"people to listen to their message.
And, also, where do you draw the line when I have started infringing upon your right to use public space because you do not like what I have to say? The religious fanatics have been at this for years; in parks, on college campuses (which could be argued to be private property), in town squares. What do you generally do when you are dealing with that type of situation? Do you sit with fellow onlookers and haggle the guy, or do you exercise your right to move away from the "disturbance" to another part of the space?
I just want to know where is the line drawn when my right to freedom of public speech infringes upon your right to enjoy public space? Is it when you are hearing something you do not agree with? Or is it somewhere else?
The cops have the same legal basis for arresting a sidewalk preacher as they do for arresting a political protester.
Regarding your last paragraph, if you monopolize public property to compel me to listen to your message, no matter what your message is, then you're interfering with my right to use our public property.
As far as campaigns, all of this relates to Citizen's United, in a way. On the topic of Citizen's United, you presumably feel that government should specifically restrict political speech, when it comes from certain speakers. A direct contradiction. But the court has affirmed that speech cannot be prohibited based on the identity of the speaker.
Thanks for the clarification on the public area question. But it begs another question: How can one person compel another to listen to what they have to say? That implies a certain amount of force which would constitute false imprisonment. Do a certain number of people have to be sufficiently bothered before someone can be removed for creating a public nuisance, or can it be one person? I only ask because the laws regarding free speech and public places and infringement on others' rights is so fuzzy.
You can walk away, no one is holding you in place. I have walked away from an annoying person, unless you cannot walk.
The court has affirmed (more than once) that nobody can "insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech", because of the inherent conflict between the right of the protester to speak his message, and the right of other people to use public space without having to be a part of his protest and hear his message. That quote is also from Cox v. Louisiana. You might not agree that I have a right to walk down the street without being subjected to a protester yelling in my ear about the debt crisis or unemployment or UFOs or resource-based economies or whatever, but the Supreme Court has affirmed that I do have that right.
That concept doesn't depend on the number of people who are bothered, because the doctrine of time, place and manner restrictions allows government to regulate the use of public spaces through prior restraint. The permit is required before the protest, not after somebody is bothered by it.
While I do actually agree with what you are saying, I guess my main problem with the infringement upon someone else's right to peaceably use public space is that despite Supreme Court rulings, it still remains subjective as to what is considered infringement. At least in my mind. I may not be bothered by the local street soothsayer, but someone else might. So, my rights have not been stepped on, but the other person's have. So, who is correct, me or the other party?
You might ask him where free speech IS allowed in public since any space he occupies disallows it according to his view. Even a permitted protest at the state Capitol steps would infringe on his right to be free from being subjected to a protest message.
Excellent point. I did not catch that. And considering that he advocates the use of permits to "regulate" free speech, there really would be nowhere that his rights were not being infringed upon. Anywhere he went that there was a permitted protest or speech going on would be infringing upon his right to enjoy that space.
I still hold to my argument that a person can exercise their right to leave that space until such a time as they can enjoy it without fear of infringement.
I guess you did not read my other posts that you replied to. I never said that free speech rights are absolute and in fact I listed several reasons why they cannot be. When you infringe on the rights of others.
In this case the speech and location are protected. Protecting speech on the statehouse steps is the exact intention of the first amendment. We would be hard pressed to find a better example of when it applies.
"If you're monopolizing public space in order to compel me to listen to a message that I don't want to hear, then you're interfering with my right to use public space." That is a generality that could be applied to any speech making all speech in public places banned. You do not have a right silence people so you can be protected from hearing something you do not want to hear. That is just ridiculous. That is a Big Brother attitude if I ever heard one.
You have the same misconception that is used when people talk of separation of church and state, another part of the first amendment. The intent is not to prevent people from being exposed to religion. The intent is to protect the state from the church. We don't want the church running the state as they did in Europe for centuries.
Separation of church and state is a great example of how the First Amendment all by itself doesn't tell the whole story. Because that isn't in the First Amendment. If not for the process of interpreting the First Amendment, there would be no such doctrine.
That's what I've been talking about the whole time here. The First Amendment was the beginning of a long process, not the end of it.
That is true they are just the beginning. In fact there is no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution, Declaration or Federalist papers.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
That is all it says. It was to protect the state from the church and the people from the state. It was not meant to protect the people form exposure to religion.
As an atheist I have no problem with a Christmas tree in the town square, a minuet on a building, a prayer group in a public school, a cross on a building or side of the road. I am not afraid my children will become Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists because they are exposed to religion. If they do that is up to them.
You use examples that are not even related to this event. You bring up child pornography because it sounds nasty even though it has nothing to do with this story. Child pornography is not has nothing to do with free speech. It is not illegal because you might have to look at it and you don't want to see it. It is illegal because in order to take the picture you have to commit a crime. You have to either trick or force children to engage in sexual acts. That is the crime. Distributing it is promoting the illegal behavior.
Having to hear someone ramble on about the national debt, crony capitalism, or why god does not exist does not outweigh the speakers right to speak his mind.
The bill of rights is not about protecting people from hearing each others opinions, religious beliefs, or rantings. They are all about protecting the people from the government.
As we evolved as humans in societies we have moved away from restriction and towards freedom. In my humble opinion that is moving in the right direction. We can buy clothing on Sunday, women can show their arms and legs in public, you will not be beheaded for speaking out against the president or our government, you can read a speech on the front steps of teh state building.
No you cannot, apparently, isn't that why he was arrested. I have seen how our freedoms have been curtailed, and I, at age 64, am disgusted. This was not what I was raised to believe. I believed we had freedom of speech, Occupiers do not.
Correct, the Bill of Rights is not about the complexities that emerge when one person's rights conflict with another person's rights. That's the kind of thing that our legal system had to grapple with afterward.
There are a lot of people posting to this page who firmly believe that the final word on the topic of free expression is "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Yet, 18 USC § 1466A says this:
That law, passed by Congress, doesn't describe an inchoate offense. It doesn't prohibit "promoting" illegal activity, as you say. It directly restricts speech by making a class of speech illegal. It prohibits a kind of expression.
So how can that, be?
That was the relevance of child pornography to this conversation.
There are those in congress that are willing to ignore our constitution. They waste our tax dollars working on a Defense of Marriage Act or Don't Ask Don't Tell. Do we really need to be creating laws so many days a year.
There are old laws on the books that are silly like adultery being illegal in several states. Just because congress 85, 102 or 104 passed a law does not mean it is a good thing. Why should people have to wear clothes at all. Why are people offended by the human body. Even if you are religious it seems silly to be offended by God's creation.
Why can men walk around without a shirt on but women can't. Men have nipples, Some men even have fatty tissue like women that makes their breasts larger. How is seeing a tit in a pubic place offensive. These are just silly laws that come from our Puritan and Quaker roots.
So just because 52 men an women decided something should be illegal does not mean the decision was a good one. Just because a law was passed does not mean it is a step forward. You can sight all the provisions you like that does not change the fundamental issue that freedom and liberty are the cornerstone of our constitution and paramount to a modern society.
We move backwards all the time. Two steps forward one step back They create acts like the Sedition act and the Patriot Act which violate our rights in the name of safety. People were willing to give up more rights on September 12 2001 then at other times. That does not mean it is a good thing. Crating a law that allowed police and army to round up and detain Japanese after Dec 7 1941 was not a good thing. Creating a law that put people in jail for speaking out against detainment or the wars was not a good thing. Black listing people because the believe in communism was not a good thing even if you believe communism is a bad idea. We don't burn records of negro music anymore.
Whenever our freedoms are being inappropriately restricted we need to push back. Whenever or our liberty or private property rights are being violated we need to stand up and be heard. That is how we move forward and prevent a move toward tyranny.
Whose rights exactly were being violated by this speech?
From the Louisiana State Constitution
§7. Freedom of Expression
§9. Right of Assembly and Petition
http://senate.legis.state.la.us/documents/constitution/article1.htm
Does the state of Louisiana not have the authority to arrest somebody for yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater because of section 7? Or is there possibly more to the story than just that?
he didn't yell fire, he was simply reading a speech. besides he wasn't arrested for the speech content rather for not having a bribery permit to be permitted to say it.
The yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater scenario is just an example that's commonly used when discussing First Amendment law. It's just a demonstration of the dangers of unrestricted free speech. It's part of our legal heritage relating to the First Amendment.
The point is simply that freedom of speech is not absolute. There are a lot of people posting to this page who believe that the First Amendment gives everybody the right to absolute, unrestricted free speech, and that any kind of restriction on expression is unconstitutional. The simple demonstration that this is not true is the theater example.
Standing on the statehouse steps making a speech is the quintessential example of speech that our forefathers wanted to protect when they created the first amendment. They especially wanted to protect controversial speeches.
The first amendment was not created to protect acceptable speech. You don't need an amendment for that. The first amendment was created to protect unwanted speech, especially unwanted by the government.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" relates to a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Justice Holmes who created the analogy later began to doubt his decision due to criticism received from free speech activists and reading his work "Freedom of Speech in Wartime". It is during times of war or terror that people are most accepting in having their natural rights violated.
In my opinion, it was one of the worst Supreme court decisions of all time made during one of the worst times in our history when our rights were severely violated. The next year the Sedition Act was created and signed by none other than our most Progressive president Woodrow Wilson. The worst Act ever created by our government. More than 2,000 prosecutions occurred under the original and amended Espionage Act. They were finally both repealed in 1921
So you can shout fire in a crowded theater but that is not the main point. Protecting speech on the statehouse steps is the exact intention of the first amendment.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." -- Benjamin Franklin
In Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, the court limited the scope of banned speech that presents a "clear and present danger" to speech that is likely to incite imminent lawless action. As in, a riot. That happened long after 1921 and that's part of your hint that this part of the doctrine on free speech restrictions survived long after the Espionage Act of 1917.
There are lots of other obvious examples of speech that the government can restrict. Child pornography, defamation, threats, etc, etc. If the point of all of that was that legal restrictions on free speech ended in 1921 then no, that's not correct.
You can rationalize it all you want however:
Protecting speech on the statehouse steps is the exact intention of the first amendment.
Protecting Americans from the kind of tyranny that they left behind in England was the intention of the First Amendment. And regulating public spaces in the interests of all was part of the intention behind the type of restriction on the First Amendment that we're discussing here. Our legal system is looking after everybody's rights, not just the rights of the guy who wants to shout his opinions to the world.
There are limits on free speech when I violate the rights of others. For example I cannot shine a 10,000 kilo-what light on my neighbors house. I cannot stand in Greenwich Village with a blow horn shouting at 3AM in the morning. Camping in Zuchotti Square is not protected because camping is not speech and there is an ordinance against camping in that park and signs on every corner. All of that makes sense.
Standing in front of the Capitol with a sign saying these guys are criminals, or the president sucks, or Down with the supreme court, or America is going down the tubes, or "they got bailed out we got sold out" IS and should be protected.
How about this...
Explain why we need to be protected from a man giving a speech on the statehouse steps.
Because he can potentially infringe on the rights of other people who also have the right to use those steps.
Example: in Miami a few months ago, this tent encampment formed that was full of people conducting a political protest. It was dense and active and it went on for month, and there were quite a few police calls there. Some of the people who worked in the area, and people using the metro station in the building, we're not comfortable walking through the area. They had to take detours to approach the buildings in the area without going through the encampment. And throwing a frisbee or having a picnic or even just reading a book on the lawn was totally impossible. The protest encampment infringed on the rights of those people who were denied the use of the public space. The City of Miami had granted a permit for the protest, but after the law enforcement problems started to become a problem, they exercised their authority to regulate the use of that public space.
"Because he can potentially infringe on the rights of other people who also have the right to use those steps."
You cannot and should not limit free speech because of potential. You have a propensity to use hypothetical's and probabilistic thought. If we all lived our lives that we we would never go out the front door. You also seem to be the king of hyperbole.
I will say it once again because it is one of the most important tenets of this countries constitution:
Protecting speech on the statehouse steps is the exact intention of the first amendment.
And finally a great quote:
"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."
"Only in a free society do individuals have the best chance to seek virtue, strive for excellence, improve their economic well-being, and achieve personal happiness. The worthy goals of civilization can only be achieved by freedom loving individuals. When government uses force, liberty is sacrificed and the goals are lost. It is freedom that is the source of all creative energy. If I am to be your president, these are the goals I would seek. I reject the notion that we need a president to run our lives, plan the economy, or police the world. It is much more important to protect individual liberty and privacy than to make government even more secretive and powerful."
--RonPaul
This statement is false:
If you had simply said "you should not be able to limit...", then that would have been an expression of your opinion that I would have simply acknowledged. But you made a (false) statement about fact.
The doctrine of "prior restraint" pertains to regulating speech before the speech occurs. The Supreme Court ruling that first applied to the doctrine of prior restraint to protest permits was Cox v. New Hampshire, which is a case that has already been mentioned at least once on this page. That ruling said that while political speech could not be subject to prior restraint, parades could. Then in 1953, Poulos v. New Hampshire extended the prior restraint doctrine.
"regulating speech before the speech occurs" Yea I read Fahrenheit 452 and saw Minority Report I know how that works.
The Supreme court has made many bad rulings over the years. When they relate to freedom, they are often later repealed.
You like so many people get is ass backwards. They founding fathers were for maximizing individual freedom and liberty and minimizing government control over our lives. They had the right idea.
I guess we will have to agree that we will continue to disagree. You seem to prefer restriction before freedom and I prefer to be with freedom and be very careful about when and what to restrict.
By the way , if it can harm someone, why is it OK to do it if you pay a fee? Anything that violates someone else's rights should not suddenly become acceptable if you anti up some coinage.
The founding fathers didn't have very many opportunities to consider how things get more complicated when the freedoms of one person start to interfere with the freedoms of another person. But they did establish the judicial branch for grappling with those issues, which is what they have done. Permit restrictions for protests on public property don't simply abridge the speaker's freedoms, they also protect everybody else.
And the fee is not the point. Many local governments don't charge a fee. The purpose of the permit is not revenue generation, it's a way of regulating the use of public space. If the use of public space were not regulated by local governments, then people would take it over and monopolize it for their own purposes and then it would cease to be public space.
This was one guy on the statehouse steps. Not an assembly, not a parade, not a takeover.
And did this person yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre?
What harm was caused by reading a piece of paper? Who was harmed? What public were barred from using the space?
Can I drive around in my car with no driver's license and no vehicle registration or license tags, and then tell the cop who pulls me over that I shouldn't get a ticket because I didn't hurt anybody? No.
Can I build another house on my property without getting any permits, and then defend myself when I get caught by asking who was harmed? No.
Can my friend from Venezuela come and stay with me indefinitely without obtaining a visa, and then avoid deportation by asking who was harmed? No.
Are you starting to see how this works?
again, apples to oranges, your scenarios do not equate. And as the freedom to assemble is also in play here, the individual was actually demonstrating his constitutional right to protest the government. And his location was apt. If u can't protest at the government buildings, where can u/should you? Driving is not a right. Building is not a right. Immigration is not a right. All your examples are retarded. Stop watching Fox Cable networks.
Everything that was mentioned in the aforementioned post is absolutely correct. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I live in a state with one of the highest repeat DWI offenders, and when they get caught, their "license" to drive is taken away. So, you need a license to drive therefore it is not a right and is not applicable to Free Speech/Right to Assembly conversation.
There are many things that require permits and licenses because these things are not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is protected by the Constitution and is therefore a right. It is written into the codified law of this country. This man in Louisiana was exercising a right not a privilege, and requiring him to get a permit to do so is (or should be) illegal. Because then his right moves out of the realm of United States law that lays out the rights we do have and moves it into the realm of privilege to exercise a Constitutional Right which is contradictory. Does that make sense?
The common thread there is that our government is entitled to restrict all of those things through licenses/permits/visas, and if that's the conclusion of our legal system then you don't get to just build a house without a permit because you think that it's unfair for the government to require you to get a permit for it. Not legally, anyway. If you choose to engage in civil disobedience by building a house on your property without the right permits, then that's a very different thing than asserting that what you did was actually legal because the government never had the authority to require you to get a permit.
You are dead wrong on this one, sorry.
I can't respond to your argument since your post contains no argument, sorry.
He was yelling "fire" in the theater of Democracy and rightly so as it is burning fiercely at the foundation of our inalienable right to free speech.
"Inalienable" and "absolute" don't mean the same thing. Our freedom of speech is not absolute.
Our right of free speech is inalienable, it belongs to us from birth. It is not granted by the constitution, but prevented from being taken by Congress. The Louisiana state constitution also prevents it's theft.
Requiring a paid permit for a person to speak on the steps of a state capitol building is a clear violation of that inalienable right.
Agreed. It is inalienable but it is curtailed which makes it not absolute. The yelling "Fire!" in a crowd is probably the most over-used example, but you still can't do it. Our Freedom of Speech is with us since we were born, but we cannot use it to libel or slander a person (curtailment), we cannot use it to incite a riot, there are a few situations in which our right to Free Speech is circumscribed, and that is what separates absolute from inalienable.
The heart of the debate here is whether a person standing on the steps of a public building has the right of free speech. This man was not yelling fire, or slandering anyone. If we cannot speak freely, openly, and unhindered at the capitol, then do we really have the right to free speech.
Here is the form to hold an event at the capitol:
http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/bg/PDFs/Event%20Request%20Form.pdf
Should the freedom of speech for one person require this much paperwork to be filled out? If an injustice occurs today should we have to wait weeks to have our request approved to protest against it?
After reviewing the form required to obtain permission to hold a rally or event, the thought occurred to me (and should be plainly obvious to all) --- "What recourse does the requestor have if the State simply chooses to deny the request?"
The State is making the determination as to what person or organization is being allowed to speak and who isn't. What are the criteria whereby the decision is made as to who can speak and who can't? This places utter control in the hands of the State and not the citizen. In a repressive State controlled by those who do not wish dissenting opinions expressed in public, it would be a simple matter to simply deny all requests for public assembly and excercise of free speech. And this would be perfectly legal, since in theory a written request for permission to speak implies the possibility that such a request will be granted...but what if it never is?
This is why requiring a permit to speak on the steps of a public building, paid for with publicly-funded taxes, for the purposes of simply stating that our 1st Amendment rights are in jeopardy of being curtailed, is a ridiculous and dangerous concept. No one is required by law to listen to another person speak in public. No one is forced to accept another persons opinion and, indeed, any grown adult who is worthy of the discription "adult" should not have any concerns whatsoever as to what comes out of another persons mouth. People should be able to make up their own minds about things other people say, and people should have the right to say whatever they wish as long as those words do not cause physical harm to another person (like causing panic by saying "fire" in a crowded place when there is no fire).
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never harm me." We teach this simple rule/concept to children at an early age. Why do people get all upset about it as grown "adults"?
I'll tell you why --- because the power-elite want complete and total dictatorial control of the masses, and when they sense that the masses are waking up and starting to state the truth in public, they react in the only way they know how --- suppression and repression.
Then we end up with Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, etc.....
All societies fail when they fail the population/people.
We are seeing this TRUTH in action world wide.
The reason for the event permit is probably to keep opposing groups separated. It would be interesting to find out if anyone has been denied a permit before and for what reason.
But what about a single person speaking his mind on any matter. Why should that require a permit? And a 10 day wait to express his views on an issue that requires immediate response?
We grow up assuming we have a wide and open freedom of speech, but in fact it is severely regulated to protect others rights. That balance seems to favor all other rights except speech, the very heart of our fundamental human rights.
Be sure to read this article that explains some of the restrictions that the supreme court has allowed to be placed on free speech here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions
seems if any grounds should be a public space to speak
it would be the government ground
I completely agree. Where is a more proper place to redress our grievances than on the grounds of a capitol building.
According to the link above, public parks, sidewalks, and streets are considered public forums. Capitol grounds, courthouses Etc. are considered limited public forums.
There is a four-part test for the constitutional validity of time, place and manner regulations in the public forum:
1. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest?
2. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of a particular message?
3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest?
4. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating messages?
The court has upheld that regulation cannot be based on the identity of the speaker, which is a key part of the background in the Citizen's United ruling.
"Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest?"
What if the governemnt is corrupt? What if that governmental "interest" is not in the best interest of We The People? In this country, We The People are the government (at least in stated theory). We The People have the right to express our opinions openly and without fear of repression or reprisal.
Why should there be so much concern about the free expression of opinion in public? After all, there is an old saying -- "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one." As I stated previously, the power-elite knows that the free expression of any type of opinion that runs counter to their interests must be met with resistance, suppression, and repression. The duty of all free citizens is to remain forever vigilent to efforts by the State to repress/repeal civil rights and whatever rights granted to them by law. And the US Constitution is the highest law of the land. The fact that the SCOTUS can render interpretations of the law in their verdicts in no way confers the status of infallible deity upon those 9 justices. Men and women in long dark robes do not constitute godhood. Decisions can be made that run counter to the best interest of We The People.
Sometimes I think people have never taken a Civics class. This stuff was taught to me in high school.
Because of the potential for that free expression to interfere with other people's rights. I don't want to have to walk a gantlet of sidewalk preachers and rabid political protesters when I take my baby for a stroll on public property.
There are even more scenarios where one person's speech could interfere with another person's rights when you're talking about the steps of a government building. Should a KKK demonstrator be able to camp out on the court house steps and shout white supremacy slogans at inter-racial couples coming to the courthouse to get married?
"Should a KKK demonstrator be able to camp out on the court house steps and shout white supremacy slogans at inter-racial couples coming to the courhouse to get married?"
Do not take my answer the wrong way when I say that "Yes, the KKK demonstrator should have that right!" I am not a white supremacist, member of KKK, or any other completely sick and ridiculous organization such as that. But this country is composed of all types of people, including the completely sick KKK. If you start saying that these "people" do not have the right to their opinions in public, then you can say that the NAACP does not have the right to express their opinions in public. Then you can say that only certain types of people are allowed to speak in public, and others are not. Then you can pass a law that says that only State-approved groups can speak in public. Get the concept?
In the case of these poor people who were walking up the steps to get married, as long as this KKK idiot didn't physically restrain or otherwise harm them, these two people need to realize that they must endure this fool as they casually walk right by him on their way to get married. Unfortunately, this is the price that all free people must pay to continue to live in a free society. They should know that this KKK imbecile should be completely ignored. And by doing just that, instead of calling attention to his actions, they speak louder by doing nothing than if they respond and make a big deal out of it. It is an unfortunate example that you have raised, but does go to the heart of the matter of free speech. I know many people will not agree with my opinion, and the law itself may even state otherwise. But I will forever assert that any law is WRONG that seeks to deny free speech (except for that which could cause bodily harm).
Underdog scores again !
No. It's possible to protect the rights of those couples to access the court house without imposing regulations that are based on the identity of the speaker. That's what content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions are all about. That's what permits can accomplish. That's why you might have to get a permit for your protest on public property, regardless of whether your message is about God or political corruption or white supremacy.
The KKK was an example intended to illustrate the potential conflict between one person's freedom of speech and another person's right to access public property. Most of the people on this page are only thinking about the speaker's rights.
"That's what content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions are all about."
You're not listening. I keep saying this but you either ignore it or silently disagree.
Just because a law or restriction is on the books does not mean it is a good law or restriction. Groups of people lobby and pass all kinds of laws because that is what they want, not that it is necessarily in the best interest of society as a whole. People have all kinds of motivations for enacting laws. Some of those motivations are good and obviously benefit society. Others are designed to benefit a minority of people, whether rich or poor. Regardless, these groups of activists who lobby politicians to enact laws in their favor do NOT have the best interest of society as a whole in mind. They want to use the system to their advantage by passing laws that benefit them.
You are too much in love with the letter of the law and not paying enough attention to the spirit of the laws that are designed to restrict people's rights.
I was just making a distinction between restrictions that are based on the identity of the speaker, and legally-valid restrictions that are content neutral as well as neutral to the identify of the speaker.
You and almost everybody else on this page are obsessed with the rights of the speaker, and you're totally disregarding everybody else's rights.
Also it is good to have the insane KKK and other monsters identify themselves so that good people know who to protect themselves and their family's from.
KKK hide under hoods
I'm afraid opposing views have to be allowed. Like those right wing wacko religious fanatics who hurl anti gay slurs during soldiers funerals in the south. I think you have to shout them down. Humiliate them. More people against these extreme views is the appropriate way get them to stop. I have seen anti KKK rallies. That is the way! not laws against free speech
I refer you to the Supreme Court's decision on the Westboro Baptist Church in Snyder v. Phelps:
And here is another example of the Westboro Baptist Church operating within the boundaries of time, place, and manner restrictions imposed by a local government:
http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2010/dec/10/city-raleigh-grants-picket-permit-extremist-church-ar-607468/
It's sad that those "GOD HATES FAGS" idiots have a better understanding of the First Amendment than the freedom-loving Occupiers here.
Don't be sad. I think you are incorrect that the right wing wackos have a better understanding than freedom loving Occupiers! So don't worry.
Thanks for the post.
I think that, yes, a person standing on the steps of a public building such as a court house, capitol building or other such place definitely has the right to say what he/she wants, whatever it is, and no, one should not have to wait weeks in order to address an injustice that happens today. How long has that law been on the books?
Not sure how old the law is, haven't been able to locate it yet. It seems the very rights to free speech that we always assumed we had are really not protected.
According to one of the cases cited above, picketing outside a courthouse is prohibited because it puts undue pressure on the court to submit to the demands of the crowd.
It might be simpler to name where the free speech zones are, instead of where they are not allowed, as that list might stretch for miles
From Wikipedia, The First Amendment (which I am certain everyone is acquainted with)
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.
I want to examine the word "abridging"
transitive verb 1 a archaic : deprive b : to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech
One could make an argument that requiring permits would in fact be depriving or diminishing the scope of free speech. And the Supreme Court (not the Congress) has upheld laws limiting free speech. It would appear that as long as it is a branch of the government other than Congress, free speech is not really protected.
Here is a very good link talking about restrictions relevant to the first amendment.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions
You're still confusing "inalienable" with "absolute". Government doesn't take away your right to free speech when it restricts speech. Restricting and taking away are two very different things. You have a right to say many things. But you do not have the right to publish child pornography. You do not have the right to try to talk somebody into killing me. You do not have the right to threaten to kill me directly. Your right to free speech has limits. If your speech is commercial in nature, then there are even more limits.
None of the examples given remotely apply to the person speaking on the capitol steps.
Why should that person be denied his right of free speech?
Because the capitol steps are public property, not his property.
Please explain.
Justice Roberts explains, from the decision in the decision on Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, from 1939:
So applying this reasoning to the man speaking on Louisiana Capitol steps, what general comfort and convenience did he infringe upon?
Well, according to the article on this page, "Justin Warren has a voice that can carry and be heard over the din of city streets." (Also known as "disturbing the peace".)
His offense was not the volume of his speech, but the lack of a permit.
Found the application here:
http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/bg/PDFs/Event%20Request%20Form.pdf
Amazing how much paperwork is needed for one person to publicly speak.
So you're against him speaking in support of the 99%?
OMG is that all that you can comprehend, Senator McCarthy? Which side I'm on? Why does there have to be a side? The world is not so simplistic. That's part of what made Bush such an idiot, please don't imitate him.
On the topic of this entire page, I'm on the side of the Justice Hugo Black quote that is posted several times to this page already.
You're "on the side of the...... quote"? Please.! You can't support OWS protesters putting their freedom on the line?. It is important to know who is with us. So taking a side matters. Your avoidance is telling. You either get behind us, or you're in our F%$Kin way!.
you're
and try not to use the word you
Right thanks. Why can't I use "you"? is that a forum rule?
not a rule just a practicality
the word "you" creates unnecessary attachments to posters
when the issues should be at focus
Agreed. Use of the word "you" makes it personal. If one must post something that absolutely has to identify the other poster, the more formal "one" could be used. That doesn't make it personal. And I agree, the issues should be the focal point not whether one is for or against the OWS movement and its message. It is not a grudge match between individuals, it is a commentary on the nature and state of our so-called democracy, and the government's ineffectualness, the capitalist giants that created this mess with the full help and knowledge of the governing bodies, as well as the collapse of our infrastructure.
That could just be a way of saying that his message is applicable to what is happening in this country. It may be taken as meaning his message is pertinent not as his voice is so loud that he doesn't need a bullhorn.
wrong. they are his property, and the property of any citizen of the state of Louisiana, or the US.
Yes, any citizen. The concern of our legal system in establishing the authority of government to regulate that public property is the potential conflict between the protester and other citizens who are also entitled to use the property.
"potential" can be fairly sweeping in range
Yes, "potential" takes the regulation into the realm of prior restraint, which is a whole new complexity.
how bout the cops wait until someone actually keeps another from utilizing said space before moving to arrest, instead of using laws as a way to silence opposition. Maybe then people wouldn't be so keyed up about it? The point is, that it is common knowledge that opposition to the protestors is the main motivation to these arrests/harassment, not fear of law breaking or violence.
Hey Troll, read the entire statute: "...but is responsible for abuse of that freedom."
Ah, so you acknowledge that government does, indeed, have the authority to restrict speech.
What process should we use for determining whether somebody is "abusing that freedom" by monopolizing an area of public space to hold a political protest? I have one suggestion. (Hint: it involves issuing permits.)
If he were interrupting some other speaker, then yes, he would have been "disturbing the peace". That is to say, he would have been infringing on the right of the other speaker to be heard. This is what you are referring to in your hinting that permits should be issued. When there are more people who want to use a public space then that space will reasonably bear is precisely when permits become neccessary. But absent such scarcity, can you see how requiring a permit for ALL public speech stifles freedom of expression?
But there was no other speaker. He was disturbing no one's rights, which is apparent when the crowd begins yelling "its free speech, why are you arresting him?" instead of the usual applause that is given when a genuine trouble maker is removed from an event where he is unwanted.
What is at issue here is an individual being arrested for giving a speech on public property in violation of his Constitutional right to give that speech.
Permit restrictions can't be based on scarcity at the moment, because what if the protester decides to just camp out? Literally? This guy was associated with the Occupy movement apparently, so there is always that risk. In Miami, the Occupy encampment was originally issued a permit, which gave the government the ability to take back the public space that the encampment monopolized, by revoking the permit.
Unfortunately, Occupy's actions simply made it more clear that permit restrictions for protests really are necessary. Before Occupy, it might have been debatable. More people might have agreed with you that permits shouldn't be required to protest on public spaces. But Occupy demonstrated pretty clearly why they're useful. Kind of ironic.
Fascinating logic at play here, let's break it down: "...because what if the protester decides to just camp out?" If he chose to extend his speech into a peaceful occupation-style act of civil disobedience then he would face the consequences of laws such action breaks. If he refused to leave once the area had closed, he would be subject to arrest. If he refused to leave the space to make room for a previously scheduled group, he would be subject to arrest. If he set up a tent, he would be subject to arrest. If and when he oversteps the bounds of protected free speech there exists a litany of legal means to silence him. But he made no such violations. And still he was silenced.
Arrested for "disturbing the peace", as if peace could not bear the free expression of one man.
Why would he be subject to arrest if he were to pitch a tent, but not if he were to simply stand there indefinitely? How does the tent change anything, legally speaking? How is the tent the key thing that entitles the government to restrict his protest?
I feel like we're speaking past each other here. The tent is not "the key thing", its just "a thing" (namely camping in a prohibited area) that he could be arrested for, had he chosen to do so, which he did not.
If he were to "simply stand there indefinitely" as you suggest, so long as doing so violated no laws or the rights of others, more power to him. That's called freedom of expression, and I'm for it. Now he may run afoul hours of operation and be asked to leave, or if someone else had scheduled/permitted use of the public space he was occupying he would then be asked to leave. But the steps were open, and there was no one else there demanding his arrest for refusing to leave. He was just a guy, reading speech he had prepared on the steps of the Louisiana state capitol. And now he is behind bars.
Let's get back to the point: There are plenty of legal, non constitutional right infringing reasons to silence and remove someone from speaking on the steps of a public building. He was violating none of them and yet he was still removed. Why?
Well, you hinted at the reason earlier- guilt by association. He is "with the Occupy Movement", he is drawing a crowd so he must be "up to no good". This flimsy excuse for "probable cause" has yet to stand in court, as most every case that gets before a jury is thrown out:
• Major Occupy/OWS Court Victory-- 31 Occupy Philly Protesters Acquitted on All Charges
• In Second Occupy Wall Street Protest Trial, Police Claims Again Rejected
• Citizen Video Evidence Helps Two Arrested Photographers Have Their Cases Dropped
Its a waist of resources to pursue these cases because it was a waist of resources to arrest them in the first place. The police seem to be content act as state sponsored censors, locking people up for the maximum time allowable under any charge they can think of in a blatant attempt to silence the Occupy movement, but juries comprised of these repressed citizens peers will not stand for it.
People like you are the reason lawyers were invented.
Some folks just don't possess common sense, and feel driven to argue something that is just understood by every one with an IQ above room temperature. You're arguing just to argue.
You're either unemployed sitting at home trolling this page instead of out looking for a job, or you're a spoon fed union employee, screwing your employer out of a day's wage with your trigger finger constantly hovering over ALT+TAB.
So funny
I guess it's obvious to everybody else here who has common sense, that we should all be entitled to publish child porn web sites? It's my inalienable, absolute, free-speech right to do so, right?
I've seen an awful lot of your posts and I've only just come to this website, and for the most part only looked over the comments in this thread. You always seem to be arguing the for the law over common sense, which is exactly whats wrong with your argument. The law has become so convuluted and corrupted that only those with the money to hire lawyers benefit from it and those that have the power to shine light on their 'plight' get benefit. Every now and again, the rich will throw one out to the wolves when he misteps or just because, but generally those in power live a life where the 'law' simply does not apply to them. Do you believe that, permit or not, anyone with enough capital behind them or even public fame would be constrained to the same restrictions of their speech? This country lives on a set of double standards and its getting to the point where everyone knows it, that is why things are getting so cagey now, 'they' can see where this is leading and 'they' do not like it. Your disregard for the obvious puts you at odds with most everyone here, yet you continue. It all seems very suspect to me.
There is a difference between saying, "This is how the law on this works", and saying, "This is how the law on this should work." Almost all of my posts on this page are on the topic of how the law works, not necessarily how it should work. But there has been a very long and in-depth discussion among legislators, attorneys and judges over the last couple of CENTURIES about how the law should work, and most of the people posting to this page don't care about any of it. Unfortunately for them, that centuries-long discussion is what makes up the law of our land.
If we're going to say, "yay for Justin Warren for his act of civil disobedience in violating an unjust permitting law", then that's one thing. But insisting that what Justin Warren did was legal because of the First Amendment is a different thing entirely. I'm only objecting to that, because it's false. A steady stream of very carefully deliberated Supreme Court rulings over centuries says otherwise.
No, no it is not. And by persuing that train of thought, u are depraved. That you would equate a speech about social injustice to child pornography is pathetic. GTFO u right wing nut. Your rights were not abridged by this action, most likely, You were not affected at all. U are just like those fools trying to tell others who they can marry, wether they can get abortions/contraceptive coverage in the medical insurance, etc etc. GTFO of other peoples lives, and get a more satisfying life of ur own so u don't have to be always butting into others lives.
Child pornography is one of many examples of valid restrictions on free speech rights. If your right to free speech is absolute, then how is the government entitled to prohibit you from posting child pornography to the Internet? Why isn't that restriction considered unconstitutional?
§7. Freedom of Expression
"Section 7. No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom."
A diatribe on the currently degraded state of Democracy is NOT the equivalent of yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. What the spirit and letter on Louisiana Statute on Free Speech is saying is that every person has the "right" to express in writing, speech or other manner their opinions on a subject be they agreeable or dissenting. Yelling "Fire!' in a theater is not an opinion, and therefore, would not be protected under Free Speech rules and laws. Now, if the opinion that one is putting forth in a public place causes a riot, then you could maybe give an argument that the person intended, with their words, rhetoric (in the case of government), and/or ideology to cause said riot. That would be an abuse of the Free Speech Statutes in most states. But this guy did not do that. He was peaceably letting people know where he himself stands on the state of our now so-called democracy. He wasn't speaking with the intent of disturbing the peace.
For example, is a person not allowed in public places to proselytize their religious convictions? And do crowds not gather to watch and poke fun at this person? Is that Free Speech or is it disturbing the peace? Most people do not want to hear other people's religious beliefs. Is this person infringing on another's right not to hear the opinions of the religious man? Or can they just get up and leave? They have that right too.
The relevant, precedent-setting cases that established time, place and manner restrictions were actually generally about religious speech. For example, Cox v. New Hampshire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_v._New_Hampshire
The case was about a group of Jehova's Witnesses who wanted to use public space. Religious groups are also subject to permit requirements, where applicable.
To all "regulators" here:
Talking against the government on public grounds is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended to protect.
1st Amendment doesn't say "if you pay the government/get a permit" What if,say, the government sets the permit price at 1 million dollars?
This is a clear constitutional violation.
The next problem(or is it not?) this causes is that when the 1st Amendment gets violated, the 2nd one may come into play...
if any place should be a public stage for speech,
it ought to be the steps of the peoples capital
But what if someone else has dibs?
good question
set an hour rotation on wait time ?
Or ... how about managing it by requiring permits? That's a pretty popular solution.
permits are not for the management of public spaces, but are for the financial confinement of the masses. IE only the rich get to use the spaces that we all pay taxes to maintain. GTFO u right wing troll nut.
Permits are one possible technique for "regulating" the use of public spaces "in the interest of all". From Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, from 1969:
because we all know that laws are "never" made in the interests of Corporations or those in power to suppress the common person. History tells us that this just is not so. Laws are not infallible, and are man made, so any law made, and any interpretation of them would always be for some interest or another.
Paraphrasing jhirsch: Should a person have to wait weeks to obtain a permit to protest an issue that is currently occurring? The protest would lose its meaning if one had to wait weeks to obtain the necessary paperwork to exercise their right to express their opinion. It would lose its timeliness, its in the "here and now," and become obsolete and meaningless. The attention span of most people when it comes to most issues is not very long.
As long as everybody has the same waiting period, regardless of the content of their speech, then I don't think that would be a problem under our current system of time, place and manner restrictions on free speech. I agree that permits should be issued quickly and that they should ideally be free for some types of speech. Obviously not necessarily for commercial speech.
Definitely not for commercial speech. They can wait. However, as with the justice system (punishment being swift, and sure), a permit system for use of public space for a protest or speech regarding something highly pertinent to either the group or the individual should be given as quickly as possible, and not at a fee such that it becomes prohibitive for people to exercise their right to public or private assembly. Which I can easily see happening.
A state or local government would be free to set its own fee system, and given the state of most states' economies, I could see this "pay to speak" idea getting out of hand.
You say "would", but it's not a hypothetical system, it exists. This is nothing new.
In many cases there is no fee at all. Here's an example permit application from Iowa City, Iowa:
http://www.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/file/permits/paradeassemblypermit.pdf
That's for a parade assembly. Parades, regardless, of their messages are generally peaceful gatherings.
I agree the the use of the word "would" implies a hypothetical situation/system, but what I am trying to allude to is the fact that this system of permitting could become a means for a state to raise money thereby making it possible for them to set different rates for different events which already happens as you made clear with your link.
Well, it would appear that the only permits one needs in New Mexico are for fishing, hunting, building, and concealed carry laws. Apparently, we can all get together without a fee. However, i know this to be erroneous since last year's Occupy protests were broken up due to lack of proper permit.
That example application is for parades, protests, demonstrations, walk-a-thons, music events, athletic events, corporate picnics, and other uses. They list a series of examples on the form. I don't really know what that has to do with anything.
For New Mexico, you would probably want to check with the applicable county and city. You're normally going to need to go to the city. Example: http://www.santafenm.gov/forms.aspx?FID=76
free speech should not be fettered unless necessary
the police interference should be prosecuted
The courts actually agree with you on that first one. But that shifts the debate to the word "necessary". Who decides what restrictions on speech are "necessary"? (Hint: we have a very well-established legal framework for making decisions like that.)
I am trying to link to www.occupynola.net (the site listed above), and I get a message that I am being blocked.
What is up? Is this Nazi Germany?
OWS Power to those who are not afraid of exercising their Freedom of Speech before the People! ~ bit.ly/MRvvEj ~ @Peta_de_Aztlan
"You can't talk here" - said the corrupt government
[Removed]
URGENT Sacramento To Outlaw Protesting At City Hall 9-11-2012
Video Message here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV0bm6_12XA
http://occupywallst.org/forum/urgent-sacramento-to-outlaw-protesting-at-city-hal
Bank of America is violating FDIC laws by having bank customers with large deposits immediately referred to Merrill Edge/Merrill Lynch financial advisors because "Advisors are better salespeople in getting the client to invest in non-FDIC products" and lose money. If the client just wants a safe FDIC product, Merrill Lynch is fraudulently claiming these everyday bank sales as "financial advisor sales" to artificially boost sales numbers to look like they are better advisors than Fidelity and other competitors. Bank and "safe" are synonymous just like doctor and 'cure' are synonymous. You would not be expecting to be 'sold' or approached by a financial advisor in either setting. You go to bank to keep money safe not strong armed into buying a mutual fund with all types of fees.
Merrill Edge also hides the fact they have sales bonuses to clients. They are required to disclose this fact to clients.
Hello. I am from Maldives, and I must say, I was nearly in tears when I finished watching the video. Justin Warren is indeed a brave, brave person, and we must all try and get him out of jail as soon as we can. I, for one, see him as a symbol of the fight for freedom. We have been protesting in Maldives for a long time now, since the ousting of the first democratically elected president, It gives us hope, to see that so many people around the world are going through the same crappy circumstances, yet fighting against it everyday. Thank you, Mr.Warren, for being a source of hope for all those oppressed around the world.
occupynola.net is inaccessible. The website ULR is http://occupynola.org
A permit to speak on the steps of a State Capitol! Even the Founding Slavers must be turning in their graves.
Nice speech. But resisting arrest is a really bad idea usually. We always kept our legal ducks in a row. And had a great relationship with the police and city for almost seven months.
It was hard for me to understand how a group aimed at protesting could have so little understanding of or respect for the laws relating to protests. Until I realized that clashing with law enforcement is actually the goal. It's part of the protest, for some people. Why get a permit that entitles you to express yourself without fear of arrest -- when you're hoping to get arrested?
Maybe they wanna make news. Or maybe the 1%'rs wanna label any dissent as violent lawbreakers.
the general populous opposes violence
Me too! Generally
We had plenty of those come through camp. Lord knows how many. I was only there a few hours a week. Gotta break some eggs to make an omelet folks. We humored them. Five arrested when they closed the camp. But they did not run away. ;p Premeditated.
When the 1st Amendment is being violated consistently, maybe it's time for the 2nd.
suck it up and deal with it.............if they want you to pay for free speech then you pay and like it cause you people ain't gonna do anything about it and they know it so...............ha ha..........
Sorry to break it to you, but the government DOES have the authority to restrict speech and assembly.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/government-does-have-the-authority-to-restrict-spe/
Human rights are inherent and universal. Case law is irrelevant.
If case law were irrelevant, then the First Amendment would only protect you from acts of Congress. Not Orleans Parish or any other local government. The amendment explicitly says, "Congress shall pass no law..." Case law is what broadened the application of the First Amendment. If you want the First Amendment to apply to state and local government at all, then you have to accept our entire legal system as a whole, including the conclusions of stare decisis.
Well then this Constitution needs to be amended to take away local municipalities' rights to take away speech from their citizens. Thank you for pointing out a MAJOR flaw with the Constitution.
NO governing body, no matter how large or small, should have ANY right to deny your use of your voice. No matter how many judges say otherwise, requiring money to engage in speech is wrong.
Do you agree that it is a fundamental human right for everyone to be able to speak?
Wow. You really do need to take a civics class. Here, please at least read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
That's just the beginning of the story. The First Amendment was the first word of the story but it was definitely not the last. That's the point that I've been trying to make here. Other amendments, lots of laws, and lots of case law came afterward. The way that things work now is the sum total of all of it.
You didn't answer Betsy's question.
Sorry, I was reeling from the 14th Amendment part.
I don't think that unrestricted speech is a fundamental human right, no. Since that's a blanket statement, the answer is easy. Do you have the fundamental human right to yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater?
You are definitely NOT with OWS if you have that stance. Being against free speech is going to make you an enemy of everyone here, and me especially.
The fire in a crowded theater argument is a straw man. Its not relevant here. That exception is about public safety, NOT free speech.
This is about one person reading from a piece of paper, harming nobody in the process. Apparently you think its OK for that to be illegal.
Why did you conclude that I'm "against free speech"? I'm obviously a bigger fan of the First Amendment than any of the people here who don't understand how First Amendement law works. I'm a passionate supporter of free expression rights, but I'm also not ignorant about the government's well-established authority to restrict speech. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Our legal system has established and reconfirmed that principle over the course of centuries.
The fire-in-a-crowded-theater scenario merely demonstrates that the freedom of speech is not absolute. That government does have the authority to restrict speech. Denying that is to deny a very basic conclusion of our legal system. Rejecting that conclusion is to reject our legal system. And I don't really have a problem with people rejecting our legal system -- until they turn to our legal system and the First Amendment to defend themselves. You can't reject First Amendement law, in general, while clinging to the First Amendment itself.
You should just privatize free speech and get it over with - sell it to the highest bidder. That is the direction we are heading, and why not, everything has a price tag these days. Our entire political process is up for auction these days.
Speaking in public against the oppression of democracy without a permit is a noble thing to do. Buying a ticket for what is already guaranteed by the constitution as "free" to begin with is shameless. The issue of infringing on someone else's right to free speech could be handled without the exchange of money.
If speech needs a permit, then change the constitution to reflect the reality of what that really means - "PERMITTED SPEECH ONLY".
Free speech is not absolute, but it is not for sell either.
I'm not arguing "should". I'm not expressing any opinion about whether any given government "should" require permits for demonstrations in any given area. I'm simply clarifying how our legal system works. Specifically, how First Amendment law works. Specifically, that government does have the authority to restrict speech. I'm not making any statement at all about "should".
We all know what "is" happening. The whole point is to argue what "should" be happening. The whole point is to argue what our future "should" be like. "Should" we live in a world where speech is only permitted to people who can pay for it. In the year 2022, how much will a speech permit cost, $10,000 bucks. Or "should" it simply remain free at all times to everyone?
btw, I'm not arguing against the right to restrict free speech, only against making someone purchase the right to free speech.
Well I suppose that's fair for you to push me for an opinion. My own humble personal opinion is that the Occupy movement actually demonstrated to local governments why permit restrictions are absolutely necessary. The entire premise of the Occupy movement was to monopolize public space and then use it as a base for clashes with law enforcement. What city government official would not be horrified by the concept? It is even more clear now, after the Occupy movement fizzled out, that permits are an important tool to protect public spaces so that they can be enjoyed by the entire public and not just by protest groups or juggler's conventions or hobo encampments or whatever. Permit requirements protect the public's access to public property in the same way that driver's license requirements protect the public's safety on public road ways.
You are right -- the local governments do indeed have the authority to restrict real democracy in order to protect the fake (for sell) one, that you like so much.
you never heard of states rights? the 10th amendment? do you think its ok for anyone to walk into an in session state house and start screaming whatever they want to?
Absolutely. Its THEIR government too. Too many people forget that.
Government of the PEOPLE By the PEOPLE For the PEOPLE
No, our freedom of speech is not absolute. Instead of just repeating the same things that I've been saying over and over all day, how about I refer you to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Types_of_speech_restrictions
So , according to you,when obama is giving a speech anyone attending can scream out that obama is a traitor, and there will be no consequences.
Free speech is being able to call-out our representatives - in public.
The propaganda machine is against free speech and voicing of concerns in public.
The president is our top elected representative and should be available for public redress as should all of our elected representatives and the campaigning wannabe's.
try standing in front of the white house and keep saying loudly over and over that obama is a liar. see what happens .
I think that that is likely to happen.
I expect we will see a bad reaction from TPTB.
tptb? please explain
The Powers That Be.
Yes, and anyone who wants to scream at Mitt "Mr. Burns" Romney can do that as well. And most reasonable Americans have the right to call these actions despicable.
Just because YOU don't like a particular instance of speech means that you can do anything about it.
From the Louisiana State Constitution
§7. Freedom of Expression
Section 7. No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom.
§9. Right of Assembly and Petition
Section 9. No law shall impair the right of any person to assemble peaceably or to petition government for a redress of grievances.
http://senate.legis.state.la.us/documents/constitution/article1.htm
Does Section 7 give you the right to publish a child porn web site? (If you lived in Louisiana.)
That is an unusual question. Are you a registered sex offender?
It's an example of government restriction of our free speech rights.
yeah ok. child porn? That freedom you are concerned about?
It's kind of funny how distracting that example is to you. Let's use a different example instead: defamation. Does Section 7 of the Louisiana state constitution mean that nobody in the state of Louisiana can ever be charged with defamation?
Who the F%$K cares? do you support the right to protest? or not? F%$K the law! freedom of speech, assembly, association, the press, if there is a law against these things they will be challenged. period.
The right to protest is not absolute. I agree with what Justice Hugo L. Black wrote in the Cox v. Louisiana decision:
However absolute it is, it needs to make room for OWS protesters. You disagree? IFwe get arrested we have to challenge the law. That act can get the message out as well. We must wake people up. Don't worry about the law. Peaceful protest is the way. And has been at the center of all great movements. Do you support us?
Go for it, bro. Just don't camp out on a sidewalk where you're in my way.
You won't camp with you're fellow 99%.? We gotta do all the work for you? Don't be another lazy American. Democracy requires work, sacrifice, informed electorate willing to protest. C'mon! Join us. "If you ain't part the solution, you're part the problem" (I think that was also Justice Black, or White, maybe Grey)
stop using the word "you"
I wasn't even talking to you!
Does Section 7 of the Louisiana state constitution give me the right to publish child pornography? (Pretend that I'm in Louisiana.) Or is there more to the story than that?
The right to publish child pornography is not being debated here.
The debate centers on what gives the state the right to deny the speaker on the capitol steps his right of speech.
The restriction of free speech IS what is being debated here, and child pornography is yet another in the long list of examples of perfectly valid types of restrictions on free speech. There are people all over this web page claiming that the First Amendment gives everybody a blanket right to make any sort of expression they like. They don't understand that the First Amendment was the beginning of the story, not the end of it. By simply pasting Section 7 from the Louisiana state constitution over and over, you appear to be one of those people.
The restriction on free speech at the Louisiana Capitol steps is what is supposed to be debated here. So let's stay on subject and try to come to agreement. I'm still at the Capitol steps. Will you join me?
Of course. I've been giving a tour of some of the applicable jurisprudence that affects the restriction of free speech at the Louisiana capitol steps. You're free to counter with your own legal argument. Or, if you like, you can simply assert your belief that I'm wrong without backing it up with anything, like everybody else here.
The first amendment to the constitution as well as the similar state constitution do back up the argument that a person has the right of free speech in the state of Louisiana.
What is missing from our discussion is the law or ordinance that specifically relates to the requirement for a permit to speak at the capitol. I have searched but found nothing so far, but have asked for assistance from those involved in LA. Maybe your search skills are better then mine. Here are some links:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/tsrssearch.htm
http://louisiana.gov/
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10107
It looks like you already found what you were looking for when you posted this:
http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/bg/PDFs/Event%20Request%20Form.pdf
The Bill of Rights (and related jurisprudence) is an attempt to describe basic human rights, but it's not the source of those rights, and frankly, it's woefully inadequate.
Citizen's United ruling was about whether or not that speech would be harmful to our Democracy. This is why it matters who is president. SCOTUS
SCOTUS always sides on the money. You should have certainly figured THAT ONE out by now...
Let call that wrong. Lets agitate for a change in that reality. Lets urge rulings like ending segregation, Was that for the money. Maybe your talkin about the right wing SCOTUS. Maybe the liberal SCOTUS would find for the people not the 1% corps. Didn't libs on the court find against cit united. Maybe theres a difference.
There's always a close vote.
Ending segragation wasnt about money.
If its about money, it goes to the money. If the court was really conservative, and not facsist, they would be overturning Roe vs Wade.
They most certainly are conservative.! But they can only go so far I guess. And usually pretty much party line votes. Libs/progressive would support OWS agenda, Conservatives support 1% criminal corps! No?
Most Republicans I know are appauled at what is going on with the top .01%.
There arent really any Americans that think that pillaging the economy is a good thing, bailing out banks is a good thing.
The parties toe different lines, but when you look at actions, and also inactions, its always the same story with the feds- raw fascist policy.
Same for the courts.
And lets not go down the road of conservatism (what it is suppose to be) is the same as multinational fascism.
Republican politicians support whole heartedly the right wing policies that created the 1% crimes. The dems betrayed their progressive principles when they caved in and voted for those right wing policies. Repubs I know on this site and in day to day life support these politicians and just blame the victims as always. I don't know what your talkin about.
Then you need to get out more often.,..
I get out just fine. Enough to know it is conservative right wing policies that created this economic crash.
Thank god most people's blinders in Occupy arent as thick as yours.
Take your pro war, pro corruption bullshit somewhere else, you fraud.
I am antiwar, and anti corruption. I have no blinders on. I see very clearly what our problems are. It resides in the right wing policies that the 1% pushed and used to redistribute the wealth of the 99% to their own pockets.I stand with the 99% You stand with the 1% criminals. You cannot silence me. You cannot intimidate me. You are small and weak. I am large and intelligent. LMFAO
" overturning Roe vs Wade" I don't doubt they would if they had the chance. Purely on political grounds.
Not always. Well, this one does. Has it stopped raining? You guys get your stuff back in order?
I guess that cynicism is trendy, but actually the 1953 Supreme Court ruling that explicitly authorizes permit requirements for standing protests was about religion, not money.
Maybe they were trying to stop civil rights marches? You think? Maybe they are using these laws now 'cause their afraid of the power of a growing peoples movement. Maybe we should call it what it is. WRONG!
Sorry, but no. The Supreme Court in 1953 was not trying to stop civil rights marches with their ruling on Poulos v. New Hampshire.
Do you think that you can rewrite history to align it with your narrative simply through the power of suggestion? Do you think that appealing to cynicism will lead other readers to conclude that the Supreme Court was trying to stop Martin Luther King, Jr?
I said "maybe"! And I don't need to rewrite history to state that every level of power was tryin to stop MLK. You gotta be a special kinda moron not to believe that. Supreme court on down. And more importantly do you think todays right wing wacko SCOTUS is tryin to help the left/progressive movement of today.?
Im not saying everything they do is about money, obviously.
Im saying when big money is involved, they go with the big money.
Its big money people that appoint them, people seem to forget that. Its not like good honest people are selecting them, or interviewing them.
Citizen's United didn't have anything to do with whether Orleans Parish can require a permit for a political protest. The rulings relating to that are much further back in the past. And hiding behind a literal interpretation of the First Amendment while ignoring all of that precedent in constitutional law doesn't work, because the First Amendment says, "Congress shall pass no law...", it doesn't say, "Orleans Parish will pass no law...". The legal process that extended those First Amendment protections to lower levels of government is the same process that resulted in the conclusion that government can, indeed, require a permit for a protest.
So you support the govt arresting people for speaking. That seems unamerican! Lets support the protester. Lets not attack the brave soul trying to create change that would help the 99%. Lets call the govt action unconstitutional. Lets force the law to change. Lets say the govt (fed local) should not be allowed to pass a law preventing dissent. Lets agree that would be wrong. I stand with the protesters. Where do you stand?
Your insistence on dividing people into us versus them continues to be highly entertaining. Your McCarthy-esque challenges to declare allegiance in almost every post make me giggle out loud every time I see one of them. I'm not sure if that's very American.
But what seems really un-American to me is to remain blissfully ignorant of our legal system and constitutional law. Shouldn't people who go around constantly babbling about the First Amendment understand at least a little bit about how it works?
We should protest against the 1% criminals you excuse!. We should challenge every law that prevents free speech, free assembly, free association. You think we should study law instead of protesting against the 1%? Are you against OWS? You want to shut down protest and get us to study. We have lawyers for that. Stop criticizing the brave protesters challenging unjust laws designed by the 1% criminals to silence the 99%
You're hilarious, Senator McCarthy. But yes, I really do think that people who use the First Amendment to justify their actions should learn about how the First Amendment works. The First Amendment doesn't just give you a blanket right to unrestricted free expression and assembly and association. It doesn't work that way. If you want to hide behind a law then unfortunately you're going to have to learn a little bit about law.
Protest and challenge the corrupt 1% right wing policies that rig the system against the 99%. Let the lawyers understand the legalese. We should protest. And we must support those that are arrested peacefully expressing themselves.
If you choose to not understand the legal issues surrounding the First Amendment, then how can you refer to the First Amendment as the basis for your argument? That's the equivalent of saying, "I don't understand anything about laws, but this law here says that I'm in the right."
yes I do understand law
Didn't you say the 1st amendment wasn't the issue. Didn't you say the local law was used against this peaceful protester? Who said I don't understand the 1st amendment.? Are you lying outright now to support your attacks on this brave protester? Protest, challenge all laws against peaceful expression, assembly, association. What is it you don't get? I support him! You don't? you aren't pro OWS are you? You stand with the 1% against the 99% don't you?
When did I say, "local law was used against this peaceful protester", Senator McCarthy? (Your witch-hunt attitude continues to entertain me immensely.)
From the Louisiana State Constitution
§7. Freedom of Expression
§9. Right of Assembly and Petition
http://senate.legis.state.la.us/documents/constitution/article1.htm
You're kind of missing the whole point. The whole point was that those are the first words on the subject, not the last.
Government authority alone does not justify its actions. Please explain the reasoning behind the necessity of requiring a permit to speak at the Louisiana Capitol steps.
Sure, here you go:
That's a big chunk of the reasoning, as explained by supreme court justices.
Also: http://gbge.aclu.org/organize/protests-and-civil-disobedience (specifically: "Protest and Free Speech: A Brief Introduction")
Cox_v._New_Hampshire - Can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety.
Poulos_v._New_Hampshire - New Hampshire city ordinance regarding permission to hold a meeting in a public park did not violate the appellant's rights to Free Exercise of Religion.
Shuttlesworth_v._Birmingham - Permits the Commission to refuse a parade permit if its members believe "permits the Commission to refuse a parade permit if its members believe "the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused
Which of these reasons behind the cited cases applies to the person speaking at the Louisiana Capitol building?
Public safety.
Permission to hold a meeting in a public park
A parade permit.
The doctrine is actually that time, place or manner restrictions on speech must:
Here's another one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feiner_v._New_York
None of the cases cited address the root of the argument, the persons right to free speech in public.
He did not endanger the public safety, hold a public meeting, take part in a parade, or incite a breach of the peace.
What exactly did he do that was worthy of arrest? The officers spoke, bystanders spoke, the camera man spoke. Are they all guilty as well?
Was the camera man engaged in protest? Was he using the capitol steps as a platform to broadcast a political message?
Freedom of speech does not recognize whether that speech is protest or general conversation.
I'm sorry but that's not true. From the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Cox v Louisiana from 1965:
In that decision, Justice Hugo L. Black wrote:
This man did not patrol, march, or picket on the streets or highways, but used only "pure speech" on the steps of the Louisiana State Capitol building.
Speaking to another person, and bellowing a political message out loud to any person in a broadcast manner, are two different things. And the Supreme Court has affirmed a legal distinction.
Please supply a link to backup. Again his offense was in not having a permit, not the volume of his speech. Notice on the event application that the state even provides amplification if you request it.
I already posted the relevant quote, two comments ago in this thread.
From the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Cox v Louisiana from 1965:
I challenge anyone here to find the reference to "the conflict between the protester's speech rights, and the rights of other people to use public property without being forced to hear some guy protesting." from the preceding link.
An argument with a reference that can't be found is no argument at all.
I've already quoted it and cited links to it repeatedly. Why don't you just do a text search in that ruling for the word "compel", if you're having problems reading it?
The quote is irrelevant to the person speaking in Louisiana. He was using pure speech, not patrolling, marching, or pickeing on the streets or highways.
If you read that decision for context, you'll see that the court was concerned with the distinction between a person speaking to another person directly, versus "compelling" people "to listen against their will to speakers they did not want to hear." The issue here is the conflict between the protester's speech rights, and the rights of other people to use public property without being forced to hear some guy protesting.
"Freedom of speech does not recognize whether that speech is protest or general conversation."
The case that you cite does not apply to the above statement. It does not distinguish between volume levels that a person uses while protesting publicly.
Can you cite a case that makes a distinction between the volume that a person speaks a
Are you sure you are citing the correct case? Cox vs Louisiana involved picketing near a courthouse. I don't see it addressing "the conflict between the protester's speech rights, and the rights of other people to use public property without being forced to hear some guy protesting." Can you provide the text or a link that you refer to?
I've already quoted the relevant parts multiple times, and I cited the decision so that you can read it for yourself. More people need to be educating themselves directly about First Amendment law, so please give it a shot.
Comparing a case that concerns a group picketing across from a courthouse to a man who is speaking in a public area is not logical. It is a first amendment case, but more like comparing oranges and grapefruit. They are similar, but quite different.
There are a lot of different cases cited on this page, but you got caught up in that one after I brought up that case to refute this statement from you:
Now you're just churning back on your own thread again and again because you ran out of replies before you ever managed to understand. I give up. You're never going to understand.
"engage in the conduct of picketing or patrolling, whether on publicly owned streets or on privately owned property"
Did the person on the capitol steps do any of these?
He compelled other people to listen to what he was saying.
I don't think that you're ever going to understand. Now you're going back to old posts and replying to them out of context since the site won't allow you to continue the conversation. You would understand a lot more if you would read that ruling, and some of the others that I've cited. I'm giving up on you now.
Here is the paragraph you cite with the specific sentence in quotes.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments, I think, take away from government, state and federal, all power to restrict freedom of speech, press, and assembly where people have a right to be for such purposes. This does not mean, however, that these amendments also grant a constitutional right to engage in the conduct of picketing or patrolling, whether on publicly owned streets or on privately owned property. See Labor Board v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, 377 U.S. 58, 76 (concurring opinion).
"Were the law otherwise, people on the streets, in their homes and anywhere else could be compelled to listen against their will to speakers they did not want to hear."
Picketing, though it may be utilized to communicate ideas, is not speech, and therefore is not of itself protected by the First Amendment. Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460, 464-466; Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490; Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers v. Wohl, 315 U.S. 769, 775-777 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring).
The sentence you cite does not apply to the man on the Capitol steps. He was not on the streets, or in their homes. This entire ruling revolves around the picketing of a courthouse by protesters, not about forcing people to hear an unwanted message against their will.
Did you read the following from the above paragraph?
"The First and Fourteenth Amendments, I think, take away from government, state and federal, all power to restrict freedom of speech, press, and assembly where people have a right to be for such purposes.
Does the man at the capitol steps have a right to be there? If that is not a proper site for exercise of free speech, then no site exists.
Did you read the sentence that came after that?
"This does not mean, however, that these amendments also grant a constitutional right to engage in the conduct of picketing or patrolling, whether on publicly owned streets or on privately owned property."
Well, I'm not sure what you're smoking, but to be perfectly clear, here is the text of the First Amendment, unabridged, regarding free speech and peaceful assembly: "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."
Now, please, explain to me anything in the text of the First Amendment that allows interpretation insofar as having to obtain a permit to make a public speech; in fact that would violate the very words of the first amendment, which clearly states that free speech should not be abridged.
The Supreme Court has decided that making remarks that would endanger other people violates the intent of the First Amendment, but somehow over the years the bought-and-paid-for various branches of government have steadly encroached on all basic rights. So, that now, for instance, it might be a crime to threaten a public official without the ability to cause fear or reasonably follow through.
Regarding the right of assembly, a completely different issue, over the years, the bought-and-paid-for branches of the government have also steadily encroached on that right, so that today, not only a simple permit, but various permits and additional paperwork may be required to have a peaceful assembly, which clearly violates the intent of the First Amendment. Any other interpretation is little more than smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the basic tenets of the First Amendment.
The whole issue of "interpretation" is why the Constitution has become little more than a showpiece, used to delude the workers into believing they really do enjoy basic, unabridged rights.
You quoted the First Amendment. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." If you're intent on using a literal interpretation of the First Amendment, then can you explain to me why the First Amendment would apply to Orleans Parish? It doesn't say, "Orleans Parish shall make no law..." It doesn't say, "Government shall make no law..." It doesn't say, "Federal, state and local governments shall make no law..." So then why would it apply to the state of Louisiana or Orleans Parish?
The reason why it applies is that the First Amendment was further interpreted by our legal system. Other laws like the Fourteenth Amendment built on it, as well as centuries of case law. And that process of interpretation resulted in rulings like these:
Federal laws supersede state laws. A state cannot make an unconstitutional law, which was one of the issues in the recent Arizona immigration case. I assumed you knew that, since the Fourteenth Amendment--along with the Fifth Amendment--contains a Due Process Clause, which clearly forbids states from infringing on basic rights.
The precedents, which you furnished, clearly proved my point about the "legal" erosion of clearly stated rights. The Constitution is a worthless document, if rights, like the necessity for writs of habeas corpus, of peaceful assembly, and of free speech, can be interpreted away.
Or, in many cases, interpreted into existence. The First Amendment doesn't protect your ability to type anything that you want on the Internet, for example. Or does it? It says, "speech", not "writing".
I won't argue that, which only further proves my point about the continuous erosion of rights. The power of words frightens politicians, though they use it to consistently lie to the people.
What we say or write should not be a crime, unless--in the case of a threat--we have the reasonable ability to carry it out, the means, and it induces fear into the persons being threatened--or we endanger others. You probably already know our federal government is one of the major requestors of internet censorship http://politix.topix.com/homepage/1184-google-internet-censorship-requests-doubled-in-six-months . So much for "Sweet Land of Liberty."
the arizona law mirrored the federal law . arizona made their law because the feds refuse to enforce federal law.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal law supersedes state law; Arizona does not have the authority to pass immigration laws, which fall under federal authority, whether the government enforces that law or not is clearly up to the federal government.
what was upheld by the SC was that if you're stopped a criminal reason the police are allowed to check you're an illegal. what the doj and hs have now done is said to arizona, if you stop someone that has broken a law ( speeding, drunk driving, robbery etc) the fed govt is NOT going to give you any info on that person. in effect, the fed said to arizona, drop dead. in fact , the fed set up a call line to rat out law enforcement officials who ask for info.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona law affecting immigration was unconstitutional, since that fell under federal authority, but the Court also said Arizona was entitled to stop people. The federal government, as far as I know, is not in anyway obligated to furnish the states immigration status on anyone, including you and me.
As far as Arizona dropping dead, I think most of the politicians there did that in the 19th century.
you're not up on the news. HS said that they would not help arizona, in any way. what that means is that obama doesnt like the SC decision. you cant pick and choose what laws to enforce. what if someone dont like a certain law , so somone does not to follow it,.........like drunk driving. and that drunk driving kills a member of your family, but your local police and courts choose not arrest or penalize in any way because they dont like the law. that o.k. with you?
The police and courts practice selective enforcement all the time. Most politicians are criminals and they're still walking around free. Bush, Cheney, and the good old boys purposely lied about the WMD in Iraq; they're still walking around free. Most of the bankers involved in the housing and economic of 2008, should have gone to prison, but most are still walking around free, earning bigger bonuses than ever.
The federal government has border patrol agents spread across two borders, has customs enforcement agents, and even uses drones to curb illegal tran-border trafficking of all sorts, but as long as gross economic disparity exists between countries, people will cross into the richer country legally or illegally.
The DHS revoked Arizona's authorization to enforce immigration laws, an agreement that had been in effect, until after the Supreme Court decision. Arizona wants to exercise its own rule; let the state do so without federal aid.
is boulder a sanctuary city?
It's a sanctuary for all types of people including anarcho-communists, but not for illegal immigrants.
I lived in San Francisco for quite a while, which is a sanctuary city, less problem there with illegals than here; must be 'cause people like Sheriff Joe were't looking for illegals among all non-fair-skinned persons.
you are under a false impression about the skin color of illegals. anyone can cross over into the usa from mexico or canada. illegal is illegal, skin color has no bearing.
"if people are out in the streets it because they choose to be. there are shelters, section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, medicaid, but you do have to apply for it. my country is the usa, you live in some alternate universe."
How silly of me not to realize people want to live in abject poverty, exposed to the elements, with not enough food or decent health care.
You should educate yourself on the eligibility for various public assistance programs. Don't let that wizard hit you on the back of the head as you're heading down the yellow brick road.
Yes, there are people that do choose to be on the streets.
Life is denied by not providing basic necessities for many people: food, shelter, routine medical care, or clothing. If a country denies people the basic necessities of life, the have no liberty, obviously that negates any pursuit of happiness.
If Marx has no place in America, who exactly does? Apparently not those that choose to disagree with you.
none of what you list is denied. if you dont have the money there are food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid, and welfare . no, marx has no place in america as founded. try reading the constitution.
"a country that does not defend its borders is not a sovereign country. we ( the the people of the USA) are a nation of laws."
Does this sovereign country defend workers? No, it denies them the three most fundamental rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
To paraphrase Marx, people cannot attain liberty without first meeting their basic needs. Since we have innumerable people going hungry, living without decent shelter, and no access to routine health care, they do not have liberty, and without the above they will most certainly perish. So, our government, because of its negligence in caring for the needy, has deprived tens-of-millions of its residents of life, liberty, and--obviously--the pursuit of happiness.
The US is not a nation of laws; it's a nation of criminal leaders, who repeatedly violate basic human rights as well as the laws of their "sovereign country." If this nation were ruled by law, most political leaders would be in prison, along with most bankers, mortgage company executives, and mega-corporation CEOs. To be a nation of laws, the laws must be applied equally; anything else is little more than fiction designed to mislead workers into believing they some semblance of equality.
Good reply.
how is life denied? ( abortion?)how is liberty denied?( the doj?) you can pursue happiness but its up to the individual to capture it. obama doesnt think that the laws of this country should be applied equally. he has no use for the constitution. marx has no place in america as founded.
Tell that to Sheriff Joe and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.
To be truthful, I don't care who crosses the border either way. Borders have proven not to keep "terrorists" out of the country. I suppose one could use, Robert Frost's ironic line: "Good fences make good neighbors."
Of course the first line of Mending Wall is "Something there is that doesn't love a wall..."
countries have borders that must defended. if you dont care about enforcing the law than you really dont care about the usa.
"none of what you list is denied. if you dont have the money there are food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid, and welfare . no, marx has no place in america as founded. try reaading the constitution."
You must live in a different country than I do. All those homeless people wandering the streets and overcrowding the few shelters have missed out on all the goodies you're talking about. You should take off the blinders and look around; it isn't the America you describe.
You know, I've read and reread the Constitution; I still haven't found a single mention of Karl Marx. You must also live under a different Constitution than I, since the one I'm familiar with guarantees freedom of political beliefs.
Go figure. We live in different countries. Yours is Oz; mine is the United State of America.
if people are out in the streets it because they choose to be. there are shelters, section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, medicaid, but you do have to apply for it. my country is the usa, you live in some alternate universe.
"countries have borders that must defended. if you dont care about enforcing the law than you really dont care about the usa."
Regarding your first statement, I have a question: why?
As to the second statement, I don't care about laws designed to subjugate working people of the world and put them at each other's throats. To quote a proletarian motto of the19th century: "Workers of all countries, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."
a country that does not defend its borders is not a sovereign country. we ( the the people of the USA) are a nation of laws.
the government should supply public areas to make speeches concerning the government
what is more ideal place than the grounds of the political system?
You really should read the decision in Poulos v. New Hampshire, because it's very relevant to Occupy. Why should you get to monopolize public space and prevent the rest of the public from using it?
So your against Occupying space that the "rest of the public" might use. Sounds like a 1% argument. If you don't stand behind us your in our F%$kin' way.!
It's a Supreme Court ruling, not a "1% argument". Here, read it yourself some time when you take a break from your 1% witch hunt.
exactly
the government open grounds should be freely available for speech
Sorry, no, you didn't get it. Let's try again with a different case. Take a look at Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham. In that ruling from 1969, the court basically said that public grounds should be accessible to everybody, and therefore protesters can't just stand there and hold a protest and monopolize the space so that nobody else can use it. Not without getting a permit.
if traffic is not impeded by protestors ,
no case for monopolization can be made
.
If one must get a permit to speak on public land
.a monopolization of control over the grounds can be made
.
stop using the word "you"
If you read the court's ruling and you disagree with it and want to discuss it, then that's one thing. But if you just throw out a knee-jerk disagreement without even reading it, then your opinion can't be expected to carry much weight. You're still falling into that same trap of using the legal system to exonerate a protester -- while simultaneously rejecting the legal system.
stop using the word "you"
I agree that the government can restrict the time, place and manner of free speech - but there are reasons where this is imposed and it is normally in cases where one persons right to free speech impedes on another persons right. For example, one of the cases involved a demonstration/concert at a park in New York - the loud music bothered a nearby neighborhood. The organizers claimed the volume of the music was free speech, the neighbors considered in a nuisance. In the end, the volume of the music was regulated.
Now, lets look at the current situation. One guy without amplification standing on the steps of the capital building? His arrest is a horrific injustice. Normally permits are requested because the march or whatever is going to impact other people - noise, traffic, etc. To arrest someone for standing on the steps of a government building reading off a piece of paper?
I'm usually the first guy to look at one of these videos, cut through the propaganda and all the drummed up BS drama people spew and try to find the truth about what happened. But I have to admit, this one really bothers me.
I really think that people who spend a lot of time talking about the First Amendment should also spend some time learning about constitutional law. The relevant Supreme Court ruling on permits for standing protests is Poulos v. New Hampshire, and if you read it then you'll understand more about the reasoning behind preventing a person from monopolizing public space.
And the standard for determining whether government can restrict any given type of speech is not based on whether the speech impedes on somebody else's rights. The standard is based on whether the restrictions are applied in a content-neutral manner. Here is an explanation from the ACLU:
This argument (and the law itself) seem to miss one of the most important effects of this interpretation of free speech. Those who are in the most dire need of its protection are most often those denied it due to their lacking in several areas:
Permits should be free and require no hardship to obtain in order to allow even the poorest among us to have their turn to speak.
I can agree with that. But then you definitely have to make a legal distinction between different types of speech. Coca Cola shouldn't have the same ability o get a free permit for advertising messaging as a sidewalk preacher, right? And what about campaign speech?
I'm quite well read on the matter.
Content-neutral refers to the reason behind limiting the speech. The government can't limit speech based on the message (except in cases of inciteful speech, obscenity, and a few others). The reason for restricting the time, place and manner of speech is based on the impact that speech will have on the rights of others. In fact, that is what Poulos was all about. People have equal right to that "space" and did not want to be subjected to someone else's religious procedures. The way the law is applied is content-neutral, in this case everyone must be permitted regardless of the message.
Ward v. Rock Against Racism is the case I was referring to above where the restriction was placed on the concert (and future concerts) because of the volume, not the message.
Content neutrality refers to the implementation, not the reason. But if you at least understand that government does not violate the First Amendment by requiring a permit for a protest then you're way ahead of most people around here.
So you don't support this guys right to protest?
Sure, I support his right to LEGALLY protest. In this case, that meant getting a permit. He didn't do that. If somebody's attitude is that the law doesn't apply to them, and then they get arrested for violating the law, then I don't have much sympathy.
Don't you believe in civil disobedience? We've marched and taken over streets on several occasions! It was "illegal" but it was necessary because it is wrong to be corralled by police, when we were peacefully protest for important issues. "Whose streets? OUR STREETS!" no arrests. 'cause we have the right to walk in the street. If there is a law against that it seems unjust. So the cars had to wait for us. They need to understand and get the message that something has to be done for the 99%.
What gives a bunch of protesters the right to block a road way and deny use of that road way to the general public? There is a reason that you can't get a permit to shut down the entire Brooklyn Bridge for a protest rally: the public has an interest in keeping that road way open. Protesters don't get to just seize public property for their own use.
We ARE the public. "whose streets? OUR STREETS!" I saw a judge found against the police for arresting the protesters on the brooklyn bridge. Dats how we roll. What gives us the right? We take the right. We're tired of waitin for people to give us something. We can walk where we want. What are you some kinda moron? I gotta wait for someone to give me permission to walk where I want. To camp in a public park. Grow a pair. Permission? We don't need no stinkin' permission!
Yes, the whole point of all of this is that in some cases you actually do need permission. And Occupy is not "the public", it's part of the public. If Occupy blocks the Brooklyn Bridge then it's denying the use of that road way to the rest of the public.
One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.
Yes. The's the root justification for allowing the regulation of the use of public space for protests, religious speech, commercial activity, or anything else. Everybody has rights, not just the protester.
I think that if/that there is a fundamental contradiction between limits to protesting, but unlimited, dark money, campaign contributions - is why people are riled up. But instead of decrying limits to protesting, we should be thankful for those limits, in that it ultimately protects all of us. And demand like limits to speech as it relates to politcal campaigning/auctioneering.
Yet another example of having two sets of rules in this country. I don't have a problem with common sense restrictions to free speech (to respect the rights of others) as long as the distribution of those rules apply equally to everyone.
Odd that people don't get this. Oh well.
Is this concept in a precedent somewhere? I wonder if this could/has been used to try to limit money as speech. If a protester needs a permit (rightly so I believe), yet, millionaires and corporations don't need permits for campaign contributions. Because it's a form of speech and expression. Which one could argue they are abusing. The same way a protester is required to get a permit, so as not to abuse his rights to speech and expression, where it might infringe on another's person's rights. I don't see a difference. How come we can require permits for one but not for the other?
Protesters are required to get permits because there is potential for abuse otherwise. So it seems to me that we could require permits for campaign contributions because there is potential for abuse. And then there should be limits on those permits same as there are limits on the use of protesting in public spaces.
Yes, there are a lot of citations all over this page to precedent-setting Supreme Court decisions on this. Cox v. new Hampshire is a good starting point.
I'm sad to report that you're the only person through all of this that has made the connection between this issue and Citizen's United. You'll find Occupiers on other pages on this site criticizing the court for not respecting precedent enough, and for not recognizing the distinction between political speech and other types of speech. Yet this page is jammed with people who reject the idea of respecting precedent, and of making a distinction between political speech and other kinds of speech. On a First Amendment case! They're blissfully unaware of the irony behind that contradiction, or even that there is a contradiction, because they have no interest in law or the court beyond criticizing decisions that have implications that they don't like.
The judge disagreed sucka! You are WRONG.!!! Weak followers wait for permission. Strong, brave leaders do not. Grow a pair. Sometimes you gotta take risks to get great rewards. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet!. All movements require some civil disobedience. I prefer peaceful civil disobedience but definitely some civil disobedience.
Alleging that you didn't break a law is very different from civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is when you intentionally violate an unjust law. But complaining that you never broke any law is not civil disobedience.
Blah, Blah, Blah!
Oooo! your so smart! you have found a wonderful distinction. A bit pedantic and meaningless but protests in any event are required in a strong movement. Breakin laws is part of it. We have done it well. more power to the people!
If you're breaking the law and you know it and you're doing it intentionally as a protest, then I have no comment. Civil disobedience undeniably has its place. But you can't pretend that it's legal. Because a legal act of civil disobedience is an oxymoron. Saying that Justin Warren is awesome for committing an act of civil disobedience is a very different thing from saying that he never broke the law because of the First Amendment.
This is why no one took you up on your "job offer." Because you are a heartless prick who cares more about some shitty pieces of paper than the PEOPLE.
It doesn't matter what the law says. This person has the right to speak. He's not hurting anybody. No one is being attacked. Everyone else has their rights. No space is being denied to anyone else.
One person did actually and he still works with me. He's been doing a lot of real work today while I tried to teach some people on the Internet about constitutional law.
(And it does actually matter what the law says. If the topic at hand is whether or not somebody should have been arrested for something, then it does matter what the law says.)
What matters is that people be able to rise up, speak out, regardless of any law. The law is less important than the right of free speech which is "inalienable". So in the context of this post and our comments I think the most important thing is that we provide support (moral,verbal, written, financial) to all brave protesters willing to express themselves regardless of the law. Too many laws are unjust attempts by the 1% to quell dissent. That is why we should challenge them. Let the lawyers study and defend us in court. Let the people put their bodies on the line. Let our comments support those brave soldiers.
No, it doesn't matter. Laws are a snapshot of the will of who is currently in power. Many of them are unjust and unwelcome. A bad law is a bad law, and needs to be removed.
Following your logic, the laws that forced black people to drink from separate "but equal" water fountains, go to separate schools, and only have 3/5 of a vote were also just fine, right? Or the laws that prevented women from voting?
I guess we are going to disagree on content neutral and what exactly that means, but nevertheless, I do agree that permitting protests are not necessarily wrong. In my city we don't call it a permit - we just require a notification.
It does bother me, however, that the person in this video was cited or arrested for disturbing the peace. I don't think this is a good case for requiring permit or notifications or whatever.
According to this, he was arrested for a combination of things, including marijuana possession and resisting arrest:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/06/occupy_protester_stuck_in_orle.html
...as well as "disturbing the peace", which I guess is the charge in that jurisdiction for when you don't have a permit to disturb the peace.
How about you stop being such a dick? We need lawyers to "interpret" the Bill of Rights like we need the Catholic church to "interpret" the teachings of Christ. It's all plain text. There's no hidden meanings. The first amendment, simply put, says "feel free to speak your mind, just don't abuse that right."
Get over your fluffed up self-importance and realize that you have already lost the debate. Was his arrest lawful under today's legal system? Absolutely! Was he arrested BECAUSE he had marijuana and was resisting arrest? No! Should this arrest ever have happened? Not a chance! This is exactly the kind of crap the first amendment was meant to stop!
Here's a bigger question for you skipper, if everybody says this is wrong, that is the voice of the people. There is your moral compass. That voice is called a conscience, and you can cite Spy vs. Spy legal cases all day long and it won't change that simple fact that this is NOT what America is all about. If you think this is acceptable, go where your opinions are wanted, because you are contributing nothing here. You are enlightening no one. You good sir are an ass, and I for one am sincerely delighted that you have just as much input in the judicial system as the rest of us: NONE.
The First Amendment says, "speech", it doesn't say anything about what you write. So it wouldn't protect your Internet postings if it weren't for the process of interpretation.
After you called me a dick, you said, "here's a bigger question for you..." and then you never asked a question. But in response to what you said: our legal system isn't based on popular opinion. If you get a bunch of people together in a room who all don't understand anything about constitutional law, and you get them all to agree that we should all have the unrestricted right to yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater, then guess what? That doesn't change how our legal system works. Our legal system will still include the clearly-established doctrine that our government does have the authority to restrict speech. If you have opinions about our legal system and you want to change it then you can learn about it and participate in that process. But you don't get to just declare the conclusions of actual legal scholars invalid just because you don't understand them.
haha...you're such a moron. You've spent all day trolling this page, and didn't address a single thing I mentioned in my post. You would be a total shoe in for a republican party nomination.
You're just an insecure little troll. I think we would all be better off if your internet went out, as you are not contributing anything to this discussion.
How about you let the big kids talk now sparky? ;-)
I'm a little surprised that only one person today lacked the discipline to stay on topic and instead got distracted with ad hominem attacks against me personally.
Which point did I not address? The question that you never got around to asking?
I'm not buying into your crap because it just feeding your fire. One of my best friends once told me that you can't rationalize with someone who is being irrational.
If you can't keep your arguments within the realm of reason as opposed to the corrupt beast our judicial system has become, and at least try a smidgen of humility, there is no point in continuing discourse. Your narrow vision is nauseating, as is your holier than thou demeanor.
Everyone else on this thread is bringing into question the morality of the injustice and you sit there and espouse case upon case that only serve to strengthen the court's case against the accused.
We all know our system is broken, and I can assure you these types of injustices are exactly those which the Bill of Rights sought to ensure never transpired.
Yet, invariably you will give another example of all our flawed logic and inferior intellect with another diatribe of "you still don't get it."
Yeah dude, we do get it. You don't.
How about some opinion of your own instead of another regurgitation of a law book? What's your personal opinion here?
Was he in the wrong? Not according to any laws, but according to your moral compass. Without citing any laws, do you believe he should have been incarcerated for his actions?.
I live in a tourist area and I've been yelled at by plenty of sidewalk preachers and political protesters and I'm personally glad that the cops are able to haul off the ones who impede my right to use our public spaces.
And I do understand that you think that I'm a dick, but the part about the "realm of reason" seems miscalibrated, since I've been quoting Supreme Court rulings all day. These justices that I'm quoting are not stupid people who are out in left field. If that's really your impression of the court then IHMO you should read a few rulings yourself directly. It would be good for you.
Holy crap...you are totally correct. How could I have missed that supreme court rulings are infallible, and the supreme court has never overruled one of its own rulings. LE GASP!!!!
Also, color me surprised...once again, you neglected to answer the question. Why are you so afraid of having an opinion? Probably because you can't back up your opinion with anything but misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.
Don't even bother replying. I will not be following this thread any longer, as there is often little success in trying to describe colors to a blind person.
I clearly stated my opinion when you asked. So again, your comment was miscalibrated.
Almost everything that I've said on this page was about how the law works. Not about how it "should" work, but about how it really works. Citations of Supreme Court rulings effectively keep a conversation like that grounded in the "realm of reality", as you say. A lot of people seem to be frustrated with me because they want to talk about how they personally think that the law should work, not how it really does work. But it's fascinating to see so many people with so many opinions about how the law should work, who have zero interest in how it actually does work.
No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom. Id say posting on the internet is "Publishing" and thus interpretation is not needed.
Without further interpretation, why would the First Amendment apply to your SMS text messages? Those aren't "speech" or "press".
You would say that posting to the Internet is "publishing" but maybe somebody else feels otherwise. Who is going to decide on the final legal interpretation?
That's the function of our courts. And the case law on the First Amendment clearly establishes the authority of the government to restrict speech. In all kinds of different ways. If you disagree then that's fine, and you're free to engage in civil disobedience. Just don't claim after you get arrested that you weren't violating any law, because that's not what civil disobedience is.
Do your babies have paper skin, ink everywhere and pages for legs,cause it sounds like you have been trying to fuck a lawbook quite soms times. Change your name to lawjunkie. You know occupuy is a international movement, this means a lot of protesters are open minded enough to relate the laws of their country to other places in the world. This is why they understand that when it comes to issues to do with international social struggles, the law of one country should be relativated and you should base your idea on what is right to do on your human moral values. Do you have them? Who cares about American Law, multinationals move where they get away with most. They are not bound to the law of one country. Occupy is "multinational" as well and should care about the freedom everyone everywhere should want, not just as a American protester. You can only give arguments within the frame of American Law and seem to lack the human universal need to discuss what is right or wrong based on sharing the whole world with all other humans. Who cares about what the laws of your country say about public space? The whole world is a public space, it belongs to the people and always will. Sorry for my bad english. Greetings from a lawyer from Holland who from working in the law system knows it's pretty much a joke anyway. I really think you should try to think about law on a meta level. It would be good for your moral development. Try to read some philosophy of law instead of just cases. But maybe that is quite hard for you, cause there people actually work with ambiguity and you will have to make your own judgment about what you think is right or wrong, based on universal arguments instead of arguments chosen to only work in one context,like you do all the time. You are really bad at discussions. Discussions are about more than who has the most arguments. It is also about understanding why arguments have value. You give arguments but are unable to give a meta argument that supports your idea that the law is so important that everything should be regarded from a legal frame work. To be short, you seem close minded and almost autistic.
All of this started when I refuted this statement in the original article:
That's not a statement about the "human universal need" or about "international social struggles". It's a false statement about the law in a specific jurisdiction that is easily refuted with citations.
I have also stated my own personal opinion a couple of times when pressed: that our legal system properly protects the right of the rest of the public to use public space, not just one person who wants to use that public space for his own political protest.
Lastly, if you're going to criticize my discussion style, then I have one suggestion for you in return: Paragraphs.
yes, but you are also on a website with a specific goal for these discussions. why would one context count more than an other one? give me arguments why a discussion style working with direct responses to just one statement selected by you, concerned with false statements, correct use of paragraphs, etc. is a discussion style that anyone should care about if they are interested in the occupy movement? I think they shouldn't and I think you have very little content to contributeto this website. give me arguments why the context you choose to bring to the foreground over and over again deserves to be the context we should regard as important for this discussion? just give me one good argument why laws are so important (something people have been trying for thousands of years and mostly only succeed in when they refer to some absolute, like god for example, so i doubt you will come up with something good) and try to rise above your current frame of mind for once, as you are very self referential in your discussion style. I think this stems from your inherent close mindedness. like i said,maybe you should invest some time in philosophy of law. don't you think that is a interesting thing to study for someone so obsessed with law as you? when i talk about discussion style I am not talking about this in a formal sense, as in use of paragraphs etc. I am talking about your deliberate choice to stear the discussion into the same direction over and over again. maybe you have issues with self confidence, cause you seem to think your ideas are only worth something when related to law in a formal sense. there are many more ways to think about what 'law' means. you might be good at retorics as long as you limit yourself to one field. but retorics itself, even when more widely applied (which you seem to be unable to do), is empty. it might work to impress yourself, it doesn't impress others here. and you know why? because people here are concerned with what direction world history is going in, they are not concerned, like you seem to be, with being 'right' all the time. i truly hope one day you will be able to transcend the little circulair way of thinking you have teached yourself. you will find that people are also more willing to listen to you and take you seriously if you don't just keep repeating yourself all the time.
The few people on this page who have asked me about my opinion, not about the law, have gotten direct responses. You, included. Anybody who would like to discuss how First Amendment law "should" work is certainly entitled to do so. Instead, people have been repeating false statements about how the law does work, not how it should work. If you would like to start a conversation about why none of this stare decisis stuff should matter, then you're entitled to do so.
BTW, it's ironic that at the same time that so many people on this page have been rejecting the concept of stare decisis with regard to the First Amendment, there are a couple of other pages on this site where people are criticizing the Supreme Court for not respecting stare decisis enough! On a First Amendment case! The Citizens United debate is all about stare decisis with regard to the First Amendment. But on that issue, Occupiers universally take the opposite position from what you see them taking on this page.
He sounds brilliant, eh?