Congress shall make NO LAW

[Kulindahr]

Listening to the ruling by a so-called judge on a so-called court about the First Amendment makes me want to ask a simple question:

what part of "Congress shall make NO LAW . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" are you having trouble with?

"No law" is pretty plain -- it means, well, no law, not the least little thing. So how do they justify ignoring it?

 

[jackoroe]

Because no right is absolute. There are plenty of laws restricting free speech. Yell fire in a crowded theatre or even joke about harming the president.

 

[bankside]

saying what you want where you want when you want to whom you want?

freedom of expression does not have to satisfy all of those conditions to still be free.

 

[JayHawk]

Is freedom of speech thereby entitle freedom to camp?

 

[Kulindahr]

Because no right is absolute. There are plenty of laws restricting free speech. Yell fire in a crowded theatre or even joke about harming the president.

Those are two that are obvious to anyone -- and so should all limitations be.

But how do we make the leap from those to curfews and such? How do we make the leap to decide that freedom to assemble doesn't include tents? It's not far from those to designated locations for assembly and freedom of speech -- at which point the right will have been whittled away to nothing.


We have never needed a presumption of individual liberty amendment than we do now.

 

[hotatlboi]

Those are two that are obvious to anyone -- and so should all limitations be.

But how do we make the leap from those to curfews and such? How do we make the leap to decide that freedom to assemble doesn't include tents? It's not far from those to designated locations for assembly and freedom of speech -- at which point the right will have been whittled away to nothing.


We have never needed a presumption of individual liberty amendment than we do now.

I think pretty much every park has ordinances against sleeping in the park. There's nothing new here.

 

[Luciant]

Kulindahr, by your reasoning, I should be able to walk into your private home at will and initiate any sort of political rant, speech, or sermon I want, right?

No.

Freedom of speech does not grant you permission to violate property rights. Although I will admit it is precarious when cities or states do make any ordinance or law that inhibits peaceful assembly, this case involved protesters camping on PRIVATE property. That is the key here. They were told consistently to vacate. The owner has the right to sue OWS individuals for any property damages too.

On the other hand, your interpretation does carry more weight when we're considering public land. Of course, anything that is public will cause controversy because everybody stakes claim to it. Does freedom of speech really allow a group of persons to obstruct traffic at will? This has serious implications for people's daily lives (economic, educational, social, etc.). But a government that gets to dictate, at any level, how and where a person can speak and assemble in public also carries serious implications. I don't know the right answer in this case.

But we absolutely can't really expect that personal liberties allow us to infringe on others' liberities and property.

 

[Luciant]

Kulindahr, by your reasoning, I should be able to walk into your private home at will and initiate any sort of political rant, speech, or sermon I want, right?

No.

Freedom of speech does not grant you permission to violate property rights. Although I will admit it is precarious when cities or states do make any ordinance or law that inhibits peaceful assembly, this case involved protesters camping on PRIVATE property. That is the key here. They were told consistently to vacate. The owner has the right to sue OWS individuals for any property damages too.

On the other hand, your interpretation does carry more weight when we're considering public land. Of course, anything that is public will cause controversy because everybody stakes claim to it. Does freedom of speech really allow a group of persons to obstruct traffic at will? This has serious implications for people's daily lives (economic, educational, social, etc.). But a government that gets to dictate, at any level, how and where a person can speak and assemble in public also carries serious implications. I don't know the right answer in this case.

But we absolutely can't really expect that personal liberties allow us to infringe on others' liberities and property.

Another thing is that the Bill of Rights don't list a bunch of privileges that government grants to the people. The Framers considered these NATURAL rights (i.e. they exist outside of and inspite of government). Therefore, the people and the government have to respect the rights of other individuals. Yes, we do have the right to speak or to assemble, but we can't trample on others rights to exercise our own will.

 

[Kulindahr]

The court has jurisdiction to determine the extent and definition of these freedoms.

It's a mistake to believe they are absolute freedoms, though in American jurisprudence they very nearly are.

Not anywhere close to absolute, here.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, by your reasoning, I should be able to walk into your private home at will and initiate any sort of political rant, speech, or sermon I want, right?

Sure, if I get to remove the disturbance from my home in the manner of my choosing.

Freedom of speech does not grant you permission to violate property rights. Although I will admit it is precarious when cities or states do make any ordinance or law that inhibits peaceful assembly, this case involved protesters camping on PRIVATE property. That is the key here. They were told consistently to vacate. The owner has the right to sue OWS individuals for any property damages too.

The current system of property rights is immoral.

The property may technically be private, but it was made a park because the developers were required to provide a public space.

On the other hand, your interpretation does carry more weight when we're considering public land. Of course, anything that is public will cause controversy because everybody stakes claim to it. Does freedom of speech really allow a group of persons to obstruct traffic at will? This has serious implications for people's daily lives (economic, educational, social, etc.). But a government that gets to dictate, at any level, how and where a person can speak and assemble in public also carries serious implications. I don't know the right answer in this case.

But we absolutely can't really expect that personal liberties allow us to infringe on others' liberities and property.

A Republic based on rights is untidy. Liberty is untidy.

When the right answer is uncertain, err on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise we'll end up -- as we're doing more and more already -- with a system that has all the labels and slogans of liberty and democracy, but none of the substance.

 

[Luciant]

Sure, if I get to remove the disturbance from my home in the manner of my choosing.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here. If I have the right to go into your private home whenever I please, and then you have the right to "remove the disturbance in a manner of your choosing," then I think I get to shoot OWS protesters for camping on my land.

The current system of property rights is immoral.

The property may technically be private, but it was made a park because the developers were required to provide a public space.

The current system that determines and enforces property rights is immoral, yes. In my view, the problem is that property rights are NOT enforced but only abused. The fact that the developers were REQUIRED BY THE CITY BY LAW to provide a "public space" illustrates my point. Government should not have the power to tell someone what she must or must not do with her own property. I am strongly opposed to our local mayor/city council templates because they are so focused on imposing limits on individual property.

A Republic based on rights is untidy. Liberty is untidy.

When the right answer is uncertain, err on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise we'll end up -- as we're doing more and more already -- with a system that has all the labels and slogans of liberty and democracy, but none of the substance.

Liberty is untidy because individuals will act in opposing ways. Although this notion is appealing to us, we also want people to think and to act like us. OWS is not as concerned with liberty as it is with pushing a certain agenda to remodulate power in its favor. Conservative Republicans (and any other political group) do the same thing. I agree that our political system likes to enshrine liberty and democracy, but when you look at how it functions it offers neither. Yes, we do have a problem in how wealth is distributed (I won't get into that now). However, we also have a problem in how private property is disrespected on many levels for many reasons. Civil rights cannot exist without property rights else individual boundaries could not exist. More to the point, owning property IS a civil right.

Thus I agree with you that we should always err on the side of individual liberty. That's precisely what this judge's ruling does, though. Although this ruling disrupts a cause that is important to you -- a cause that you have every right (and I'd even say even intellectual grounds) to support -- it does err on the side of individual liberty because it upholds the integrity of private property. Even if you think the city had just cause FORCING a private entity to slice off a part of its property to create a public park, the OWS protests clearly over-reached the boundaries of other individuals. Their actions trespassed and damaged private property beyond any "public park" area.

Freedom of speech lets you write whatever you want, but you don't get to throw your books at me. You don't get to march onto my front porch and initiate a sacred cow sex dance. I must invite you first.

 

[Luciant]

I am both critical and supportive of the OWS movement. I really do understand and sympathize with a number of the grievances that the OWS issues. The problem, though, is that the OWS is like any other contemporary political movement: it wants to win at any cost.

Although the owner of this "public park" might represent the 1% -- the very same 1% that has benefited from a corrupt government -- I really don't think the OWS should adopt an idealogy and rhetoric that attempt to undermine property rights. In reality, this is actually a symptom of the very machine these dedicated protesters wish to destroy. Instead, it should focus on disproportionate corporate power in the political process; government bailouts to private business with no consideration for the people paying for them; unfair tax codes; unfair regulations that too often burden smaller businesses while larger ones can weasel out of them; and over-reaching Congressional power. These are the issues I hope the OWS can address.

No matter how important your message is, if your actions betray your own goals, then your efforts are futile and actually bolster your opposition.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here. If I have the right to go into your private home whenever I please, and then you have the right to "remove the disturbance in a manner of your choosing," then I think I get to shoot OWS protesters for camping on my land.

No, I was being quite serious.
But your conclusion does not follow.

The current system that determines and enforces property rights is immoral, yes. In my view, the problem is that property rights are NOT enforced but only abused. The fact that the developers were REQUIRED BY THE CITY BY LAW to provide a "public space" illustrates my point. Government should not have the power to tell someone what she must or must not do with her own property. I am strongly opposed to our local mayor/city council templates because they are so focused on imposing limits on individual property.

No, the system itself is immoral. With the system as it is structured, there is no right to private property, and that alone makes it immoral.

We need a system that actually gives a right to private property, and which is not based on blood.

Liberty is untidy because individuals will act in opposing ways. Although this notion is appealing to us, we also want people to think and to act like us. OWS is not as concerned with liberty as it is with pushing a certain agenda to remodulate power in its favor. Conservative Republicans (and any other political group) do the same thing. I agree that our political system likes to enshrine liberty and democracy, but when you look at how it functions it offers neither. Yes, we do have a problem in how wealth is distributed (I won't get into that now). However, we also have a problem in how private property is disrespected on many levels for many reasons. Civil rights cannot exist without property rights else individual boundaries could not exist. More to the point, owning property IS a civil right.

Thus I agree with you that we should always err on the side of individual liberty. That's precisely what this judge's ruling does, though. Although this ruling disrupts a cause that is important to you -- a cause that you have every right (and I'd even say even intellectual grounds) to support -- it does err on the side of individual liberty because it upholds the integrity of private property. Even if you think the city had just cause FORCING a private entity to slice off a part of its property to create a public park, the OWS protests clearly over-reached the boundaries of other individuals. Their actions trespassed and damaged private property beyond any "public park" area.

Freedom of speech lets you write whatever you want, but you don't get to throw your books at me. You don't get to march onto my front porch and initiate a sacred cow sex dance. I must invite you first.

The first step toward fixing the property system is to declare all real estate in the U.S. the property of a corporation of the whole, one share per citizen, non-transferable. Deeds would become certificates issued by the corporation of the whole. All users of real estate would then pay rent to the corporation, which would distribute the revenue equally to all shareholders -- and when I say all, I mean just that: government would also have to pay rent to the corporation of the whole, and that rent would get distributed.

No rent would be paid for anything but the value of the real estate; buildings and roads and dams are produced by humans and are thus outside the scope of the land corporation.

This would provide a rational foundation for land use; everyone would own all of it jointly, and those holding particular pieces would pay rent rather than tax.

 

[evanrick]

Is freedom of speech thereby entitle freedom to camp?

dontcha just hate protestors!

 

[jackoroe]

Is freedom of speech thereby entitle freedom to camp?

Not so much the camping, but the "occupation" that impairs the availability of public spaces or the conversion of public space for a private purpose. That's the issue that many courts have addressed in removing the OWS crowd.

 

[JayHawk]

Oh I get it I am just being a sarcastic asshole.

You have Kuli arguing that HIS private space is worth defending "how he chooses" but the owners of Zucaotti because Kuli support OWS dont have his same rights. What kind of odd alter universe is that?

My point remains the same. The OWS movement has gained prestige and support. Now it is time to move forward with some actionable intelligent manner. That does not include camping in the park. I am pretty sure the framers of the constitution weren't envisioning occupation as a condition of the right to assemble. They simply didn't want to live in a society where the government could bust through your door simply because you assembled to discuss political issues. That sort of thing goes on in China and Iran as two examples. I think you will see our courts system agree with the rights of all not being impinged by the greedy tantrums of the few. But hey that's just my opinion. I think the courts will rule in two different ways IRT the campers and then the SCOTUS will decide.

So either we agree you can assemble anywhere.... ANYWHERE and I mean in Kuli's fucking bedroom if necessary, in the Lincoln bedroom or whatever or there are limits to your rights when they take away others equally granted by God rights. They can't possibly throw out property rights because then every burglar that ever existed would get to claim he or she was protesting not robbing.

 

[Kulindahr]

... the OWS ... should focus on disproportionate corporate power in the political process; government bailouts to private business with no consideration for the people paying for them; unfair tax codes; unfair regulations that too often burden smaller businesses while larger ones can weasel out of them; and over-reaching Congressional power. These are the issues I hope the OWS can address.

Make that ANY corporate power in the political process. If it has no pulse, it has no rights, and no business in politics -- at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh I get it I am just being a sarcastic asshole.

You have Kuli arguing that HIS private space is worth defending "how he chooses" but the owners of Zucaotti because Kuli support OWS dont have his same rights. What kind of odd alter universe is that?

My point remains the same. The OWS movement has gained prestige and support. Now it is time to move forward with some actionable intelligent manner. That does not include camping in the park. I am pretty sure the framers of the constitution weren't envisioning occupation as a condition of the right to assemble. They simply didn't want to live in a society where the government could bust through your door simply because you assembled to discuss political issues. That sort of thing goes on in China and Iran as two examples. I think you will see our courts system agree with the rights of all not being impinged by the greedy tantrums of the few. But hey that's just my opinion. I think the courts will rule in two different ways IRT the campers and then the SCOTUS will decide.

So either we agree you can assemble anywhere.... ANYWHERE and I mean in Kuli's fucking bedroom if necessary, in the Lincoln bedroom or whatever or there are limits to your rights when they take away others equally granted by God rights. They can't possibly throw out property rights because then every burglar that ever existed would get to claim he or she was protesting not robbing.

That's an interesting way to twist and warp things. It's akin to arguing that since the city provides public restrooms it's okay to take a dump in the mayor's office.

 

[Kulindahr]

has Congress made a law abridging the freedom of assembly?

my understanding is that these are all state/city ordinances that were probably voted on at one point or another.

the courts usually side with limited restrictions as long as they're fairly applied and not onerous.

Are you an immigrant?

This is covered in American high schools: every level of government is bound by this.

 

[bankside]

has Congress made a law abridging the freedom of assembly?

my understanding is that these are all state/city ordinances that were probably voted on at one point or another.

the courts usually side with limited restrictions as long as they're fairly applied and not onerous.

Are you an immigrant?

Loki, your Canadian roots are showing.

In many parts of the world, freedom of speech is tested not by the ability to shout anything anywhere at any time, but by nuances like:

• is there some rational purpose to restraining a given mode of speech, to prevent some inconvenience or burden to safety or well-being?
• was that restraint the result of a free and democratic act which citizens had the opportunity to review through public debate, the ballot box, etc,
• does the restraint make it impossible to express the idea; in other words, has a government stopped any expression of an idea, thus rendering the speaker politically mute, or can they still express themselves in a different mode, venue, etc.
• are there still vigorous mechanisms for challenging the restriction in some democratic forum?

When there are reasonable answers to all those points, then speech is still free, or if you will, "unabridged."