153 lines
6.8 KiB
Plaintext
153 lines
6.8 KiB
Plaintext
From fork-admin@xent.com Mon Sep 30 17:56:35 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
|
|
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D9216F20
|
|
for <jm@localhost>; 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 <jm@jmason.org>;
|
|
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 <Fork@xent.com>;
|
|
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 <gbolcer@endeavors.com>
|
|
Cc: Fork@xent.com
|
|
Subject: Re[2]: A moment of silence for the First Amendment (fwd)
|
|
In-Reply-To: <3D9859B9.3A7F80C2@endeavors.com>
|
|
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209291337100.4723-100000@mlug.missouri.edu>
|
|
<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: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
|
|
List-Post: <mailto:fork@example.com>
|
|
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
|
|
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
|
|
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
|
|
<mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|
|
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|