From fork-admin@xent.com Mon Sep 30 17:56:35 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D9216F20 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:54:03 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:54:03 +0100 (IST) Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8UF9NK03893 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:09:25 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2792940D1; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: fork@example.com Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B4429409E for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [24.61.113.164] by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020930150823.BGMT27763.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@[24.61.113.164]>; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:08:23 +0000 From: bitbitch@magnesium.net X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.61) Educational Reply-To: bitbitch@magnesium.net X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: <10654501659.20020930110821@magnesium.net> To: Gregory Alan Bolcer Cc: Fork@xent.com Subject: Re[2]: A moment of silence for the First Amendment (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3D9859B9.3A7F80C2@endeavors.com> References: <3D9859B9.3A7F80C2@endeavors.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fork-admin@xent.com Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com X-Beenthere: fork@example.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:08:21 -0400 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,NO_REAL_NAME,REFERENCES, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,T_QUOTE_TWICE_2,T_URI_COUNT_2_3 version=2.50-cvs X-Spam-Level: >> >> http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020905brian5.asp GAB> I thought this nekkid URL was going to be about the GAB> infringement of 1st amendment rights for broadcasters GAB> and proposed campaign finanice restrictions preventing them GAB> from making money on advertisements that are deemed GAB> thinly veiled campaign contributions by some arbitrary GAB> government board. As it was posted to "discussion" I GAB> thought there'd be some. GAB> Instead it's a Post-Gazette column by Brian O'Neill GAB> lamenting the fact that some people know how to GAB> fill out a permit so that they can take advantage GAB> of their right to peaceable assembly. Obviously GAB> he's poking fun at the idea that specific groups GAB> get specific "zones" and that it's not up to the GAB> police to decide what messages and signs get put into GAB> what zones to most expediently keep order. Oh thats right Greg. Because was explicitly clear that the pro-Bush folks went out and did the permit dance. So where in the article is this again? Lets get something straight here. This -is- a First Amendment issue. Public streets, provided one isn't blocking traffic, generally tend to be sorta ok, at least from my last interpretation of Con Law a few years ago (I'll feign ignorance wrt the fact that laws may have changed, and the specific facts in this case are weak). IF this guy _was_ merely holding a sign (which it seems was the case for all the pro-bush folks) he did nothing wrong. He certainly didn't do enough of a wrong to warrant a disorderly conduct charge. I'll play with your perspective though. Lets assume a few things. If I walk into the city office and tell them I want to peacably assemble against Bush, do you think they'll give me a permit? Probably not. So I lie. Then the cop does what happened in this scenario. HE walks up, checks my permit and finds out that I falsified my statement to get this said document. He arrests me. End of story. GAB> The problem is that politics have gotten so muddied GAB> nowadays, that shouting down and unpeaceably disrupting GAB> political rallies that you don't agree with has become GAB> common practice. The courts have constantly ruled GAB> that there are some restrictions on the first amendment. GAB> They teach you that your very first year of law school. I'll agree with Owen on this one. Muddied my ass. How hard is it to chose between a Republocrat or a Demipublican? Not very. Shouting down has grown to become the answer because the government, over a span of years, and with the help of the Courts -has- limited the rights we have as citizens under the First Amendment. If you question the policy about terrorism, or drugs, or Iraq, or Bush in general, you're aiding terrorism. If you challenge the beliefs of the folks attending the various shadowy G8 conferences, you're an anarchist, and you're herded off to a 'designated protest spot' miles away from anything. Part of the point of speech is to be -heard-. I can scream on my soapbox in the forest somewhere, and while thats speech, its not effective speech. People are screaming and shouting over the political figures because they cannot be heard in any other way. GAB> I think that given the information as laid out by the story, GAB> Mr. O'Neill has confused free speech with action. Free GAB> speech or even protected speech as practiced by almost GAB> every American seems to involve the ability to communicate GAB> an idea to an unknown audience. Action involves directing GAB> a specific comment to a specific well-defined individual or audience GAB> that has immediate, harmful, and sometimes physical GAB> effects that is easily forseeable by any reasonable person. Getting back to my original point. How do you communicate an idea to an unknown audience, if you're miles from where the audience is? How do you bypass the rules for being -miles- away from the audience without violating the rules of the regime? I don't think Mr. Nell was throwing pies at Bush. A sign, the last time I checked, didn't cause physical injury, or even emotional harm. If I remember Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), its not the individual speaking that has the requirement to desist, but the individual listening who has the option to leave. Just my .02, while its still considered legal. -- Best regards, bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net