Congress shall make NO LAW

[star-warrior]

I would've thought the last decade and more where your rights have been slowly eroded would have given a clue as to the direction you're all headed. It'll be fascist Xtian right lead society for the rich and powerful who will buy the favors of their Washington whores in congress and shackles the people of your nation in servitude and bondage. Fuck the constitution, it's a useless bit of paper so long as you have those moronic leaders in either party willing to concede and dispose of your rights as their funding sees fit.

 

[frankfrank]

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're already there. Don't forget that they do PRECISELY THAT when the major political Conventions are going on. The "free speech area" for those are usually far from the "entrance" area of the Convention, and the people are usually corraled behind barriers.

this case involved protesters camping on PRIVATE property.

However, that applies only to the New York City protests, I believe. The ones in Oakland, Seattle, Washington DC, etc. weren't on private property, I don't think.

 

[palbert]

This is an unfortunately interesting discussion and one troublingly personal on my part.

Those words of "holy writ" -- "NO WRIT" -- declaimed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't quite mean what we think they mean. They are as rubbery and slithery as the most evasive grass snake you can find. And if you for some reason you still believe in this process I call you naive. I practiced this hypocrisy for 20 years plus until revulsion every morning made it unhealthy.

Professional experience makes me am a futilist, probably nihilist, sceptic and jaundiced, fully believing -- with experience -- that the judicial and legislative system are corrupt to their very bowels.

Washington and the judicial system are cons. I cherish the ideals of the Founding Fathers; unfortunately the passage of time calls for some DNA testing.

As for OWS: burn what you want down. The Blacks did after Robert Kennedy and MLK. Maybe it's the White Bro's time again (recalling 1776).

 

[palbert]

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?

Simple really: they ignore you and the law. Any ruling in abrogation of free speech or peaceful assembly must -- in theory -- meet a constitutionally heavy burden. I saw no great efforts by the courts to establish such a burden; they paid no more than lipservice to the claimants entitlement to free speech and to assembly and came down swiftly on the side of restraining free speech.

Is it dawning on anyone that the test to be applied is not the right of the constitutional complainant but the right of the courts to be free from judicial impingements and of the civic authority to be free of inconvenience.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would've thought the last decade and more where your rights have been slowly eroded would have given a clue as to the direction you're all headed. It'll be fascist Xtian right lead society for the rich and powerful who will buy the favors of their Washington whores in congress and shackles the people of your nation in servitude and bondage. Fuck the constitution, it's a useless bit of paper so long as you have those moronic leaders in either party willing to concede and dispose of your rights as their funding sees fit.

At least one day a week I'm convinced we'd all be better off if the First Amendment had quit with the five words in the thread title.

 

[palbert]

"One day a week." Boundless optimism.

 

[palbert]

On that one day a week you might recall with trepidation Kelo v. City of New London, 454 U.S. 469 (2005).

Very briefly, that was the case determining that the city fathers' could exercise eminent domain over the vehement objections of the occupants of the subdivision in question, allowing the proposing developers' to the supplant the occupants and move forward with a comprehensive economic redevelopment plan. (Ultimately the project failed and the property is now a dump.)

The Kelo case became a watershed case in its area of the law. See, generally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London; under community pressure many jurisdictions changed their laws after that.

I call this case to mind as a reminder of the actual authority and control over our "constitutional rights and property," that those we bestow with their elected capacity enjoy. At our peril.

 

[Stardreamer]

The old classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theater is really a great example of rights and responsibilities. It is NOT illegal to yell fire in a theater. HOWEVER if you do and injuries occur you are responsible for those injuries and rightly so.

If I stood up in front of a crowd in packed theater and calmly announced that I was demonstrating a point and that I would yell the word fire in a moment but that there was no danger, no panic is likely to ensue when I do yell it. I am fully in my rights to do that.

If a panic did ensue then I would be responsible and should be punished accordingly.

Thus you DO have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater but you are responsible for what results from that action. The same goes for other exercises for speech.

 

[palbert]

The old classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theater is really a great example of rights and responsibilities. It is NOT illegal to yell fire in a theater. HOWEVER if you do and injuries occur you are responsible for those injuries and rightly so.

If I stood up in front of a crowd in packed theater and calmly announced that I was demonstrating a point and that I would yell the word fire in a moment but that there was no danger, no panic is likely to ensue when I do yell it. I am fully in my rights to do that.

If a panic did ensue then I would be responsible and should be punished accordingly.

Thus you DO have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater but you are responsible for what results from that action. The same goes for other exercises for speech.

Invite me.

 

[Kulindahr]

The old classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theater is really a great example of rights and responsibilities. It is NOT illegal to yell fire in a theater. HOWEVER if you do and injuries occur you are responsible for those injuries and rightly so.

If I stood up in front of a crowd in packed theater and calmly announced that I was demonstrating a point and that I would yell the word fire in a moment but that there was no danger, no panic is likely to ensue when I do yell it. I am fully in my rights to do that.

If a panic did ensue then I would be responsible and should be punished accordingly.

Thus you DO have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater but you are responsible for what results from that action. The same goes for other exercises for speech.

Superb point!

 

[palbert]

[portion deleted]
If a panic did ensue then I would be responsible and should be punished accordingly.

Thus you DO have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater but you are responsible for what results from that action. The same goes for other exercises for speech.

A nice academic exercise. Your pro bono counsel will be? Or are we keeping this in law school?

 

[Stardreamer]

You'd be wrong in Maryland

In addition to civil liability you actually are committing a crime as well.

None of which makes it specifically illegal to shout the word 'fire', particularly in a theater where shouting and projecting one's voice is a common occurrence and thus not an 'unreasonable' loud noise.