Forum Post: Restricted Free Speech, Brother can you Spare a Dime for a Permit, OUTRAGE: Required Lawyer to Give a Public Speech
Posted 3 years ago on June 27, 2012, 12:28 p.m. EST by Middleaged
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.
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.
]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
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?
Permission to hold a meeting in a public park
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"