Let's Get Clear On What The First Amendment Protects
I'm a passionate supporter of our First Amendment rights and all our Constitutional rights.
But regarding the jerkoff OWS protester sitting in the middle of the street with the sign "The First Amendment is our permit," the First Amendment protects our right to speak freely, not our right to block people so they can't travel or get to work.
There's no right to leave thirty tons of garbage (and worse) downtown.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2011 12:50 AM
Besides, (everything I've said before about this… Look it up), man.
Seriously, Mr. J didn't use his freedom of speech. He just sat there, stinking up the joint, for two weeks. No slogans worth remembering... No petitions... Nothing. They just sat there, and then pretended they were being oppressed by the cops, expecting us to admire their... Something. The lefty Robert Wright came up with a crazy-ass plan OWS could have presented, one to tax the wealthy more aggressively. Wright basically pulled the scheme out of his hat, complete with a chant that would have sounded great on the evening news. I'd have hated OWS if they'd been successful... But they weren't even up to that.
Instead, OWS just annoyed a lot of people, and squandered the power of street demonstration in the Western world. This is not a grown man protesting injustice, this is a slow-learning child pretending to be a Mexican wrestler. From what POSSIBLE repercussions is he protecting himself with the hood... Beyond being laughed at by the leggy secretary next time he goes on a job interview?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2011 1:51 AM
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
I believe he's referencing that clause of the First Amendment. His sign is an insufficient petition to the government to not abridge that right by requirement of a permit.
Obviously, it is a balancing act between rights here. In this case the balance will be achieved by a Ford Escalade.
Ariel at December 1, 2011 6:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/01/lets_get_clear.html#comment-2821031">comment from ArielYes, you can peaceably assemble -- but not just anywhere. Not in the middle of the freeway, for example.
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2011 6:26 AM
Amy,
My point with the Ford Escalade. I wouldn't assemble on a train track either.
Ariel at December 1, 2011 6:30 AM
And there are local Tea Parties around the country asking local governments to refund the permit fees they were required to pay that weren't charged to the OWS.
Not that they'd be able to come up with said fees...
I R A Darth Aggie at December 1, 2011 6:43 AM
Freedom of speech should be an opportunity to convince me (well really everybody else as well but...) of your point of view. It should not be an opportunity to prevent people from getting where they need to go by blocking the road or to fill a public place with your garbage.
Catherine at December 1, 2011 7:27 AM
You have a right to speak, there is no right to be heard.
You have a right to assemble, there is no right to interfere with others.
The OWS crowd is made up of communists, fellow travelers, and useful idiots. Dump a bucket of soap on the lot of them and send them to bed without supper.
The sooner Communism is completely debunked the better for all of us.
brian at December 1, 2011 7:41 AM
And there are local Tea Parties around the country asking local governments to refund the permit fees they were required to pay that weren't charged to the OWS.
Not that they'd be able to come up with said fees...
Problem solved - the local governments will just initiate an audit of the TEA Party groups that complain...http://tinyurl.com/7dnkdzz
JDThompson at December 1, 2011 8:45 AM
You have a right to assemble, there is no right to interfere with others.
I can't think of a situation of a peaceful public assembly that does not in some way interfere with others, unless composed of only a few people. It's why there is always a balancing act regarding rights.
Catherine,
It's the right to peaceably assemble that comes into play here, although Freedom of Speech is involved. This is the same right that allows Gay Rights marches, Knights of Columbus parades, etc., which do of course block roads. The right to assemble covers private and public, so there is a lot underlying it. I don't believe it includes a Garbage Right that numerous "leftwing" gatherings seem to believe, but given that it is "a living, breathing document", they'll likely find it in the Ninth Amendment. (I meant the scare quotes, a lot of the time that phrase is too Humpty Dumpty for me to accept. Freedom of the Press, however, is easily interpreted to include today's technologies.)
Ariel at December 1, 2011 9:06 AM
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/30/life-lessons-learned-by-occupiers
Interesting article about the occupiers.
Steamer at December 1, 2011 9:13 AM
I love that article! Well, I mean, I like it a whole lot. I don't want to marry it or anything.
Pricklypear at December 1, 2011 10:06 AM
It's the right to peaceably assemble that comes into play here, although Freedom of Speech is involved. This is the same right that allows Gay Rights marches, Knights of Columbus parades, etc., which do of course block roads.
Um, no. Not without permits it doesn't. Block a road without prior permission from the proper authorities and you're risking arrest.
JDThompson at December 1, 2011 1:27 PM
Of course, requiring people to get the "proper permits" to assemble gives the authorities the right to deny permits for any assemblies they deem offensive.
I like the Ford Escalade logic. Assemble on a freeway and you will be roadkill.
MonicaP at December 1, 2011 1:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/01/lets_get_clear.html#comment-2821569">comment from JDThompsonJD is correct. Otherwise, we could have people having sitdowns on the freeway. Those whose only concern is themselves and not whether some lady can get to her job cleaning offices.
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2011 1:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/01/lets_get_clear.html#comment-2821594">comment from MonicaPThey can't turn away people on grounds of content and get away with it. But, if you want to block traffic, cops and other security will need to be paid for, and the concerns about diverting traffic will be considered. You don't get to stop traffic on Wilshire Boulevard solely because you have a message to send.
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2011 1:46 PM
I can't think of a situation of a peaceful public assembly that does not in some way interfere with others, unless composed of only a few people. It's why there is always a balancing act regarding rights.
Quoting myself is tedious. Permits are part of the balancing act, generally by way of concerns for "public safety or security". And of course they've been used in the past to inhibit groups going against the status quo. Anyone here think a permit for a Labor Movement protest was easy to get in the 1910s or 20s or 30s? Or civil rights movements in the 1950s and early 60s? Doubt those groups went ahead anyway?
"They can't turn away people on grounds of content and get away with it." Much harder today, of course. However, a refusal to issue a permit will not be on content but some other reason, the earlier reason I gave. Then you're either left with the Courts (can be really slow) or the Court of Public Opinion (getting faster all the time but to easily a mobocracy).
It wasn't until 1925 that the Incorporation Doctrine was fully formed yet it would be a long time before it was fully enforced. The Bill of Rights only applied to laws of the Federal government prior to that. The States had their own versions, interpreted their own way. Often poorly.
Although not specific to the permit issue, look up the history of US v Cruikshank. It was overturned in 1966.
Far afield from a numbnuts sitting in the middle of a street waiting for that Ford Escalade. Rights do come with responsibilities.
Ariel at December 2, 2011 4:40 AM
,i>I can't think of a situation of a peaceful public assembly that does not in some way interfere with others, unless composed of only a few people. It's why there is always a balancing act regarding rights.
There's a difference between inconveniencing and preventing. If you're taking up part of the sidewalk, or part of a park where people walk, that's inconvenient. If you're blocking a street or a complete set of doors, though, that's preventing, and is not considered peaceful.
WayneB at December 2, 2011 12:03 PM
Which is why it is always a balancing act. I'm not sure I can find your distinction in case law regarding "inconvenience" versus "preventing", you're help would be appreciated. A search term string would be good. Crowds do tend to block things, streets and doors. With permit or not.
Did you miss "Labor Movement" and "Civil Rights Movement"? Cruikshank was just a point of illustration.
Hey, we all gloss over history. Otherwise, it's really nasty stuff.
I do like Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath", great book and not a bad movie with Henry Fonda.
Ariel at December 2, 2011 9:42 PM
"Did you miss "Labor Movement" and "Civil Rights Movement"? Cruikshank was just a point of illustration."
It's been half a century since those things happened. The principle that local governments can establish content-neutral restrictions on time, place and manner is pretty well established now. Remember back in the 1970s, when you couldn't walk in an airport without being accosted by Hare Krishnas? The courts eventually converged on a reasonable restriction that airports could establish "free speech zones" where Krisnas and others could speak, but that those who were at the airport for some purpose not involving doing business with the airport or airline could be restricted to those zones.
Note that as soon as this was established, the Hare Krishnas disappeared from the airports. Why? Because they were never really interested in speech. They were there for the purpose of interfering with airport customers and disrupting operations. Once they could no longer do that, they lost interest. There's a parallel to OWS here. OWS, to the extent that it has a coherent goal, is not interested in speech; it's interested in imposing its will on the public. Now that it is being restricted from doing that, it's dying out.
Cousin Dave at December 3, 2011 11:38 AM
Ford Escalade?
Radwaste at December 4, 2011 7:00 PM
Leave a comment