Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Restricted Free Speech, Brother can you Spare a Dime for a Permit, OUTRAGE: Required Lawyer to Give a Public Speech

Posted 5 years ago on June 27, 2012, 12:28 p.m. EST by Middleaged (5140)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Louisiana: Permit Fees for Free Speech?

Restrictions on Free Speech, Brother can you Spare a Dime for a Permit, Defacto Requirement for Paying a Lawyer to Give a Public Speech. Requiring a Lawyer and $2 Million Dollars for Redress in Court and Requiring a Lawyer to 'Have Free Speach' ARE BOTH PROHIBITIVE.

I copied 'out-takes' (paraphrase) from string written by jrhirsch and TechJunkie who delving into the actual Law better than I can... Hope to better myself through this 'Posting' and interaction with OWS Forum.

I Don't See How Free Speech Either on Capital Steps Or in the Capital Lobby can hurt commerce or egress. I DON'T SEE How Governments can Justify Restricting US Individual Rights. I will try to read and understand the applicable laws.... I'm SURE that Free Speach at the Capital won't interfere with Public Police and Private Police vacations and 'off-time' Hours.

Looking at Occupy Louisiana Thread... Appears that the Right to Free Speech has been Abridged on the Capatal Steps where no impediment to Commerce or Pedestrian Traffic is Evident.

Can't we push back State and Federal Legislatures to a streamlined and simplified understanding of Free Speech granted by the 1st Amernment to the US Constitution.

Video Here http://occupywallst.org/forum/louisiana-permits-freedom-speech/#comment-772157

Law and Links:


Article the third ...... 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.

secondary links

]2 points by jrhirsch (1624) from Sun City, CA 20 hours ago

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.


[-]0 points by TechJunkie (2532) from Miami Beach, FL 20 hours ago

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")

[-]1 points by jrhirsch (1624) from Sun City, CA 17 hours ago

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?

  1. Public safety.

  2. Permission to hold a meeting in a public park

  3. A parade permit.


[-]1 points by TechJunkie (2532) from Miami Beach, FL 16 hours ago

The doctrine is actually that time, place or manner restrictions on speech must:
•Be content neutral
•Be narrowly tailored
•Serve a significant governmental interest
•Leave open ample alternative channels for communication

Here's another one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feiner_v._New_York

[-]1 points by TechJunkie (2532) from Miami Beach, FL 14 hours ago

I'm sorry but that's not true. From the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Cox v Louisiana from 1965:

We emphatically reject the notion urged by appellant that the First and Fourteenth Amendments afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways, as these amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech.


In that decision, Justice Hugo L. Black wrote:

Those who encourage minority groups to believe that the United States Constitution and Federal laws give them a right to patrol and picket in the streets whenever they choose, in order to advance what they think to be a just and noble end, do no service to those minority groups, their cause, or their country.





Clearly people in power attempt to accumulate power and create 'Empires'

"People in power 'Rake Back' power by passing state or local laws, tying up other powers in court, putting people through expensive court procedures, increasing their own staff and their staff of Lawyers, Joining or Establishing Informal Organizations to Create Crony, Insider, Exclusive Organizations which can promote their own and channel contracts and Funding to their own Cronies"



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 5 years ago

Legislation is only part of the equation, so restrictions of free speech can't be eliminated with legislation alone. The courts decide on what legislation is allowed.

And don't forget that the restrictions on free speech are not just about restricting the rights of the speaker. They're also about protecting the rights of everybody else when those rights conflict.

For example, most people on this site advocate for restricting free speech in the example of the Citizen's United case, because of the idea that the free speech rights of a union or corporation could interfere with the speech rights of other speakers with less financing.

Another example is the prohibition on child pornography. The speaker's expression rights are restricted in the name of the rights of the children directly and indirectly involved.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yes, and I am taking your point that the 1st Amendment doesn't say that States Shall Make No Law to Abridge Freedom of Speech. I'm not sure the Intensions of the signors of the Bill Of Rights as some of them may have believed in Slavery, didn't want women to vote or have power in government, and didn't want nonproperty owners to vote or have power in government.

But it does seem that the Developement of the Legal System depends on many stipulations and additions to clearify the law. That is why we have Articles, subsections, provisions, and Clauses in Law and Contracts.

1) Legislation as remedy.
2) Constitutional Amendments
3) Constitutional Convension
4) Additonal Funding to see that Monitoring, Tracking, Managing, and Enforcement of the Law is done.
5) Enabling Regulatory Agencies to enforce the laws may mean backing them up to go the distance in court against large corporations instead of settleing for small fines.
6) Considering alternatives to lengthy Court Lawsuits. Not only arbitration, but something more powerful... a streamlined and simplified court for specific financial violations and repeated financial violations that are predictable.
7) Consider additional Staffing for government regulators.
8) Consider Lifetime Employment for Government regulators to end the Revolving Door to Industry and promotions and conflict of interest decisions.
9) Consider reducing Industry influence in government by using IG (Inspector General Offices) to recommend and establish required public reporting every Quarter that Reveal Financial Dealings in Greater Detail - so that government can publish trends in Hedge Fund transactions and Private Banking that may manipulate investors.
10) Demand more Government Conflict of Interest Rules to include the state and federal Court Officers. These Laws ahve been studied for 100 years, are not unique, already exist in some form, and are easy to enforce and implement.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 5 years ago

My Tea Party friends are going to beat me over the head with this and all I can say is that not all Occupy's are like that.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Oh the guy in the Video. Well that is an individual and who knows. He should have Individual Rights, but if he was caught with pot... then he probably is guilty and not very smart. But on the other hand pot possesion shouldn't be a crime in my eyes.

But if he is dumb we still give him the same rights. He should be allowed to come back and speak on the Capital steps.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 5 years ago

Not all Occupiers are like what?

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 5 years ago

They just told me this guy is an outlaw. A doper. And stupid for pissing off the police after running from them before and getting busted for dope. What do I tell them?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 5 years ago

Ah, that guy. Now I understand.

Your Tea Party friends might also make fun of Occupy for having such a hard time comprehending that in many cases you have to get a permit for a protest event. The Tea Party never had that problem.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 5 years ago

They also don't get the riot squads and tear gas. Wonder how they would have fared with the non-violence under that?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 5 years ago

Riot squads don't show up at all if you have your permits in order. That's the part that the Tea Party understands, that Occupy just can't figure out.

Actually I take that back. Occupy feeds off of confrontation with law enforcement. They know that getting permits would prevent them from using police brutality as a rallying cry.


[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 5 years ago

Good point. We got permits and they showed up to protect us. Helped us evict folks from camp. Actually they were great.