PhreeZone 20 #1 July 22, 2004 There is a local group that started protesting on the statehouse lawn last weekend with plans to protest all week long. The problem comes that in order to protest you must file for a sidewalk permit and if you are going to errect large signs/banners the artwork has to be approved ahead of time to meet "decency" requirements that a non-partisian board is to rule by. Also the permit states that it is only good for 72 hours and if signs are abandoned for any time the state officials can discard them. Permits are not to be issued for back to back time peroids to the organization and there is to be no camping on the lawn of the statehouse. The group protesting now erected a large billboard that was not approved in their permit. Second issue is that their 72 hour permit expired, but they had a second group apply for the middle time block and they got the 72 hours following that. To the state officials it appeared that 2 different organizations wanted to protest but it was just a shell organization applying for the second permit. The members are sleeping on the sidewalk (as to not violate the lawn phrase), and there have been complaints from lots of businesses around the statehouse as to the billboard/poster that is displayed. The State lost a case recently to the KKK from the mid 90's via the Supreme Court about displaying a cross on the statehouse lawn and it seems they are still smarting from it. They refuse to do anything but provide additional security to the protesters for fear of violating their first admendment rights. Does anyone think that the protesters are within their rights, or does anyone think that they are outside their rights?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 July 22, 2004 If they're not violating any laws, as you stated, other than the billboard, they are entirely within their rights. With the exception of the billboard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,556 #3 July 22, 2004 They are, but it's chickenshit, and the billboard should be removed. The more people adhere to the letter of the law without considering the spirit, the more letters and laws that we need. So -- what's the cause? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #4 July 22, 2004 If they had the wherewithal to do it, they could probably win on both the "decency" and time limit requirements. Local and state governments has very bad track records with respect to first amendment rights. You don't have to agree with what or how they protest, you just have to tolerate their right to do so.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #5 July 22, 2004 >So -- what's the cause? Nah.. I'll leave that out so no one can say "Those bleeding heart liberals!" or "Those warmongering conservitives!"Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 July 22, 2004 It's proper, and it seems like they are only breaking the rule about the billboard. Look at this link: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm It's a nice analysis of "time, place and manner" restrictions of "content-neutral regulations" of free speech. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 July 22, 2004 I'm not a big fan of "regulated" free speech. Max time limits, approval requirements of materials, specified locations...all this seems contrary to "Congress shall make no law..." The goal is to allow orderly free expression, but I fear the process allows for abuse by the authorities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #8 July 22, 2004 Quote The more people adhere to the letter of the law without considering the spirit, the more letters and laws that we need. Wow. Well said. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #9 July 23, 2004 Quote I'm not a big fan of "regulated" free speech. Max time limits, approval requirements of materials, specified locations...all this seems contrary to "Congress shall make no law..." The goal is to allow orderly free expression, but I fear the process allows for abuse by the authorities. I was about to mention this, your "Free Speech" seems to be at the whim of someone elses legislation Wahts free about thatYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 July 23, 2004 Quote was about to mention this, your "Free Speech" seems to be at the whim of someone elses legislation Wahts free about that There are two conflicting issues at hand here. Freedom requires balance. Free speech means being able to say whatever you want without repurcussion. But as with any freedom, it is only legitimately exercised when not interfering with the rights of others. In order to ensure others have the right to also express their view in a specifuc public place, or use public sidewalks, or not have their view blocked by billboards, then these kinds of restrictions on time and place are necessary. Now, when these types of restrictions are only applied against certain groups with certain messages, that is infringing no their rights. But having time and place restrictions on public gatherings and protests is not a violation of their rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #11 July 23, 2004 To me, free speech is free speech. If I don't like the message I won't listen, or in this case view it. The only thing that having to get banners and billboards approved does is limit someone's right to say or express what they want. I don't think I could justify doing that in the understanding that someday I might have my own concern to express and have a wish to not be limited in trying to express it.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 July 23, 2004 Quote The more people adhere to the letter of the law without considering the spirit, the more letters and laws that we need. Unfortunately, this is one of the main points of contention. The population must have notice of a law. The only way to give notice of a law is to put it down in words. Let's say a law is created to protect "A" from people doing "B." "People shall not do 'B.'" So, here's the problem. The spirit of the law is to protect "A" but the spirit of a law is not codified. Therefore, people do not get notice of the "spirit of the law" since the spirit is contained within legislative histories and the like. The legislative history does not control, the law does. So, if "A" was Yosemite, and "B" was lighting fires, the law would say, "Anyone who knowingly lights a fire on the ground in Yosemite shall be guilty of a felony." The spirit is to protect Yosemite from fires. Unfortunately, the law prevents controlled burns meant to protect Yosemite. This means Yosemite can be destroyed by a big fire decades down the road. So you light a controlled fire, you'll face trouble, because the law is right there in black and white that you broke, and legislative history shouldn't mean anything. Wendy, the answer is not making more laws. The answer is writing laws in a better way to enforce that spirit. More laws do not do justice to spirit if the laws are poorly drafted. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #13 July 23, 2004 which is exactly why bad laws need to be challenged. Break them and break them publically and often. Civil disobedence is an extremely important part of creating a system that works, and works for all without oppressing any of the principles of personal freedom fundamental to our country.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #14 July 23, 2004 Quote To me, free speech is free speech. If I don't like the message I won't listen, or in this case view it. The only thing that having to get banners and billboards approved does is limit someone's right to say or express what they want. I don't think I could justify doing that in the understanding that someday I might have my own concern to express and have a wish to not be limited in trying to express it. Well, that is fine except in the instance where you cannot get away from the message, or when it incurs an undue burgeon (security or financial) on the persons or agency the "free speech" is near or directed at. For example, do these people have the right to assemble and block the entrance to a business that isn't the target of their concern? I don't think getting approval limits a person's ability...it simply informs the city so they can take adequate precautions to ensure your freedom of speech doesn't trample on mine, or affect the operation of local government (yes I know, don't go there). Think about the number of signs/billboards that would go up if that were the case. Hey Eric, nice way to stir up the pot. Will I see you at the WFFC? r/Jamie No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #15 July 23, 2004 I'll be there. A few more details about this situation. Protesters have now staked out the sidewalks across the roads from the Statehouse to complain about this group. Since they are not on government property they did'nt need the permits, but the police have had to have them move several times. I'm laughing watching the news. Downtown is looking like a Boy Scout campout WFFC is 13 days off. Bring the tube Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 July 23, 2004 Quote which is exactly why bad laws need to be challenged Exactly. You know, the viewpoint I expressed is exactly what Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist subscribe to. They are the "strict constructionists" and they will say, "They law says this. What it says is unconstitutional." They are likely to strike down laws that apply Constitutional intentions unConstitutionally. On the other hand, the others on the court are more likely to uphold "the spirit of the law" and let the law stand. It's a big source of controversy, and demonstrates two paradigms for how to assess it. I stand on the constructionist side - for the reasons I stated in the prior response. I have a hard time with judges holding that a law doesn't mean what it says it means. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #17 July 23, 2004 Quote I'll be there. [snip] WFFC is 13 days off. Bring the tube I have the tube and will bring it. I did a 4 tube jump in GA last month that rocked! See you soon! No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #18 July 23, 2004 Quote Quote which is exactly why bad laws need to be challenged Exactly. You know, the viewpoint I expressed is exactly what Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist subscribe to. They are the "strict constructionists" and they will say, "They law says this. What it says is unconstitutional." They are likely to strike down laws that apply Constitutional intentions unConstitutionally. On the other hand, the others on the court are more likely to uphold "the spirit of the law" and let the law stand. It's a big source of controversy, and demonstrates two paradigms for how to assess it. I stand on the constructionist side - for the reasons I stated in the prior response. I have a hard time with judges holding that a law doesn't mean what it says it means. The reason I side with Scalia et al is because the ONLY thing people can be CERTAIN about is what is actually written in the statute. The so-called "spirit" of the law is ALWAYS subject to special interests distorting it. Take the well-known example of the "assault weapons ban." A bunch of ignorant anti-gunners wrote a law which, since they don't seem to know jack about guns, is very poorly crafted, from the standpoint of getting them what they wanted. They did not ban guns, they banned a certain combination of features; and then they stood by and whined that companies that utterly complied with what their law dictated were "skirting" it. Well, the anti-gunners maintain that the "spirit" of that law was to eliminate "assault weapons," and the pro-gunners maintain that the "spirit" of the law was to keep guns from having those various features in combination. Who's right? NO ONE. That's why we have to defer to the LETTER of the law. This "spirit of the law" is really, to me, a load of crap whereby people who wish to pervert a law for their own ends are able to do so by claiming that only they are able to make sense of the law's ambiguity. It's a scam. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 July 24, 2004 Quote The reason I side with Scalia et al is because the ONLY thing people can be CERTAIN about is what is actually written in the statute. The so-called "spirit" of the law is ALWAYS subject to special interests distorting it. Perfect. Let the special interests go into writing a law. Let disinterested persons adjudge it. Well said. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #20 July 24, 2004 Quote Quote The reason I side with Scalia et al is because the ONLY thing people can be CERTAIN about is what is actually written in the statute. The so-called "spirit" of the law is ALWAYS subject to special interests distorting it. Perfect. Let the special interests go into writing a law. Let disinterested persons adjudge it. Well said. You'd be surprised by how many people have no idea what "disinterested" means, or how to use it, or why to use it instead of "uninterested." Most people seem to think "disinterested" means you don't care. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #21 July 24, 2004 Quote I'm not a big fan of "regulated" free speech. Max time limits, approval requirements of materials, specified locations...all this seems contrary to "Congress shall make no law..." I saw this and immediately thought of China. You do know there is a "right" to protest in China, right? But, the protests must only take place in one small section of Beijing and comply with other guidelines. I'm not particularly thrilled when our free speech starts looking more & more like Communist "free speech". BTW... there's only one form of free speech that really matters... and that's BOOBIES! (Had to sneak "boobies" into Speaker's Corner somehow) - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #22 July 24, 2004 Quote The reason I side with Scalia et al is because the ONLY thing people can be CERTAIN about is what is actually written in the statute. I knew we'd find some common ground eventually. A judge's job is to interpret, not rewrite, the law. The law is what it is. And it is what it says. If you don't like it, put pressure on your politician to change it. Quote The so-called "spirit" of the law is ALWAYS subject to special interests distorting it. Yes. Now, if a law is unclear, you can sometimes look to the legislative record to see if there may be some clarification via debate. But debates aren't law, so it's dicey. Here's one that will probably ruffle a lot of feathers... Somebody please show me where the Constitution explicitly grants a right to "privacy". Hint: It ain't there. It was invented by the Supreme Court several years ago in Griswold v. Connecticut. Essentially, the court said that our Constitution has "penumbras" and "emanations" which infer certain rights which aren't actually there. The ruling in Griswold was heavily relied upon in... you guessed it... Roe v. Wade. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #23 July 24, 2004 Quote Here's one that will probably rankle a lot of feathers... Somebody please show me where the Constitution explicitly grants a right to "privacy". Although I do believe that we should have a right to privacy based on the fact that there is no power to invade the peoples' privacy granted to the government in the Constitution, I do agree that claiming a "constitutional right to privacy" is overstepping. I read a letter to a local paper today in which the writer lambastes those who would boycott a theater that is showing "Fahrenheit 9/11" because she likens doing so to "fascism," because it denies the theater owner and workers "the right to make a living." Apparently this person doesn't recognize people's right to withhold support for people or ideas that they don't agree with. What is the alternative to allowing people to use their freedom to NOT purchase something? To force them TO purchase something? I mean, if I don't want to see F-9/11 and I don't like the fact that it's being shown, this person is claiming that I'm wrong to boycott the theater because now the owner won't make any money off me! This is the theater owner's right?! It's amazing how frickin' stupid people can be!! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #24 July 24, 2004 Here's the link to the letter I mentioned. Go see the views of an idiot as expressed in a letter to the newspaper. This is how stupid and ill-informed about "rights" some people are --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #25 July 24, 2004 Quote I read a letter to a local paper today in which the writer lambastes those who would boycott a theater that is showing "Fahrenheit 9/11" because she likens doing so to "fascism," because it denies the theater owner and workers "the right to make a living." Talk about "entitlement" thinking taken to a whole new level. This is a nice example of left-wing silliness run amok. If you wanna boycott F-9/11, hey, that's you're right and what makes this country great. If MM wants to make F-9/11, hey, that's his right and what makes this country great. I admire the ACLU if for no other reason than that they're consistent. Yes they take on some off-the-wall lefty causes, but they'll also turn right around and defend an off-the-wall right winger's right to THEIR opinion as well. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
