Skip to main content

I bristle every time my son mentions the Free-Speech Zone they have at his university. This whole country used to be a Free-Speech Zone and universities were its cathedrals, places where free speech was sacrosanct. But then it's pretty much sacrosanct everywhere in the USA according to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Hypocrisy has its own elegant symmetry."

h/t scorpiorising

Update: While not a transcript, this is representative of what HRC is saying in the film while her words are being contrasted to the police brutality going on in our nation right now. The hypocrisy is stunning:

The revolt in Tunisia has prompted questions about the stability of other Arab governments and initially dragged down equity, bond and foreign exchange prices in parts of the region, notably Egypt.

Tunisia's veteran strongman Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali was swept from power on January 14 after weeks of protests.

Clinton minced no words, suggesting Egypt's government had to act now if it wanted to avert a similar outcome and urging it not to crack down on peaceful protests or disrupt the social networking sites that help organize and accelerate them.

"We believe strongly that the Egyptian government has an important opportunity at this moment in time to implement political, economic and social reforms to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people," Clinton said in a statement with Jordan's Nasser Judeh at her side.

"We urge the Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications including on social media sites," Clinton told reporters in the most blunt comments to date by the United States urging Mubarak to undertake reforms.

Source

With respect to the First Amendment, someone recently told me that 'the courts have held' that permits may be required, etc, etc...

I don't dispute that. I just view it differently. I'm very impressed with the First Amendment and those who wrote it. I'm much less impressed with the random bloviating judgelets, lawyers and politicos who have nibbled away at it for lo these many years. I say bring back the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fuck those guys.

Srsly. Fuck these constitution-destroying assholes with their treasonous Patriot Act, domestic spying, corporate personhood, official torture programs, extra-judicial assassinations, Free Speech Zones, SWAT teams, mercenaries, super congresses, state secrets and police brutality. Fuck them and their whole fascism-on-a-stick schtick.

And don't go on about how terribly wise our courts are when they are clearly insane and manifestly malignant.

Our courts have held that corporations are people with all the rights and none of the obligations. Our courts have held that money is free speech (that kind of free speech they like) and that corporations are free to spend as much money corrupting our political system as they so desire. Our courts held that W should be made President even though he lost the election and was an obvious disaster in the making. The only interests served by that were the corrupt, the greedy and the criminally/insanely rich. So tell me again why we should continue to give a rat's ass about what these fools think, say or do. These assholes, like most of the rest of our government, have made themselves irrelevant by virtue of their corruption and dereliction of duty.

So should we go to these traitorous bastards hat-in-hand and ask them pretty please may we have a permit to protest their corruption and oppression?

Hell no!

Revolutionaries don't ask for permission.

We don't need no stinking permits.

Power to the people.

Guy-Fawkes-Peace-Out-OPOL

Originally posted to One Pissed Off Liberal on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:02 AM PDT.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, Group W: Resisting War, and Anonymous Dkos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They have decided to get tough with us... (357+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aufklaerer, TomP, Gooserock, JMoore, Geekesque, Damnit Janet, Robobagpiper, DCBlue, real world chick, katiec, dance you monster, praenomen, skod, Hillbilly Dem, psnyder, jnhobbs, Matt Z, Mary Mike, allenjo, blue jersey mom, annrose, shopkeeper, commonmass, mahakali overdrive, Dartagnan, slampros, artisan, Snud, Outsourcing Is Treason, phonegery, BOHICA, joe wobblie, anodnhajo, dibsa, Kentucky Kid, NearlyNormal, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Sychotic1, Horace Boothroyd III, mofembot, Youffraita, oldmanriver, LaughingPlanet, CA Nana, Sun Tzu, blueoasis, dksbook, myeye, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, elengul, kevinpdx, Karelin, maryabein, poe, TrueBlueMajority, Eddie L, jimstaro, side pocket, lastlegslaststand, BlogDog, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, BigAlinWashSt, US Blues, srkp23, Laconic Lib, gulfgal98, Rumarhazzit, angstall, Mother Mags, greycat, vacantlook, Thinking Fella, yawnimawke, possum, TheMomCat, avsp, paradox, RFK Lives, S F Hippie, poligirl, FlamingoGrrl, wordfiddler, shaharazade, Paul Ferguson, Susan from 29, GeorgeXVIII, glendaw271, ChemBob, Johnny Q, mattc129, rebel ga, drnononono, mconvente, kestrel9000, zerone, FishOutofWater, marina, Quilldriver, Timaeus, Mac in Maine, kharma, qannabbos, sodalis, BlueInKansas, citizen dan, ItsSimpleSimon, jfromga, greenbastard, Colorado is the Shiznit, Evolutionary, Mislead, Alice Venturi, Unbozo, wayoutinthestix, Ken in MN, TarheelDem, dalfireplug, Celtic Merlin, Velocity, aliasalias, Joieau, chimpy, high uintas, TDreamer, RickD, seefleur, cloudbustingkid, Evil Betty, happymisanthropy, zaka1, dkmich, Simplify, hangingchad, poorbuster, rhp, hubcap, carolita, The Wizard, DamselleFly, triplepoint, The Hindsight Times, unspeakable, corvaire, dark daze, joanneleon, jazzizbest, tom 47, xxdr zombiexx, KJG52, humphrey, joe shikspack, bibble, strangedemocracy, Tasini, Shockwave, reginahny, splashy, BlueInARedState, Rogneid, SoulCatcher, Ed in Montana, kN3eLb4Z0d, mikeconwell, pyegar, MKinTN, Rosaura, reflectionsv37, stolen water, DWG, Quasimodal, Preston S, sunny skies, legendmn, Diane Gee, LucyandByron, TheOrchid, progdog, dougymi, davidseth, jayb, m00finsan, tardis10, Cassiodorus, Muggsy, Pohjola, Rizzo, melo, Statusquomustgo, Burned, tarheelblue, Angie in WA State, no way lack of brain, Gentle Giant, TexasTwister, Skaje, Trotskyrepublican, Knucklehead, RagingGurrl, GrogInOhio, J M F, HighSticking, BlueDragon, zmom, jimreyn, DEMonrat ankle biter, divineorder, berko, Jill, willie2011, pat bunny, Lady Libertine, Arahahex, Mighty Ike, buckstop, techno, redstella, Meteor Blades, seamus mcdooby, dmhlt 66, zerelda, enhydra lutris, wv voice of reason, jayden, gwilson, Son of a Cat, CT Hank, Clytemnestra, Paddy999, emal, zedaker, oldhippie, deben, vicki, Lily O Lady, kurt, Jim P, Matilda, petulans, cpresley, tofumagoo, maggiejean, Siri, hippie bitch, ATFILLINOIS, MKSinSA, Sandino, kurious, BigVegan, Dreaming of Better Days, Major Tom, Tommymac, birdbrain64, lissablack, bronte17, Bluesee, Kamakhya, allie123, Sandy on Signal, skybluewater, princesspat, carpunder, Haningchadus14, rogerdaddy, Alumbrados, magicsister, jlynne, Kayakbiker, shortgirl, mookins, hyperstation, SJerseyIndy, maybeeso in michigan, djohnutk, eeff, David Futurama, Chi, MJ via Chicago, brockman, WisePiper, UncleCharlie, Byrnt, politik, orson, citisven, dirtfarmer, rmonroe, kyril, dharmasyd, salmo, Big River Bandido, dle2GA, mzinformed, jamess, katrinka, ZhenRen, bnasley, Funkygal, ohmyheck, Medium Head Boy, DontTaseMeBro, CTLiberal, ER Doc, Yellow Canary, peregrine kate, ItsaMathJoke, Devsd, janemas, ilyana, lenzy1000, Justus, beach babe in fl, wasatch, TracieLynn, kbman, CharlieHipHop, Dianna, notdarkyet, muddy boots, JekyllnHyde, Vetwife, jgilhousen, joanil, Miss Jones, OHdog, On The Bus, vigilant meerkat, Involuntary Exile, squarewheel, ggwoman55, triv33, number nine dream, msl, lunachickie, fumie, eOz, greengemini, AllisonInSeattle, renbear, Paper Cup, Floande, elwior, DiegoUK, Jim R, KnotIookin, JuliaAnn, solesse413, Florene, coppercelt, CTDemoFarmer, iowaworker, Sanctimonious, Debs2, RosyFinch, lotlizard, maf1029, TexDem, NonnyO

    so we have to get tough back. That's the only way to answer them. Be peaceful and non-violent but be strong. And take no crap.

    They have the guns but we have the power.

    Best of luck to all you protesters. Thank you for standing up for humanity. We've got your backs.

  •  Yes, (76+ / 0-)

    Power to the People!

    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people, right on

    Say you want a revolution
    We better get on right away
    Well you get on your feet
    And out on the street

    Singing power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people, right on

    A million workers working for nothing
    You better give 'em what they really own
    We got to put you down
    When we come into town

    Singing power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people, right on

    I gotta ask you comrades and brothers
    How do you treat you own woman back home
    She got to be herself
    So she can free herself

    Singing power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people, right on
    Now, now, now, now

    Oh well, power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people, right on

    Yeah, power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people, right on

    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people
    Power to the people, right on

    More jobs equal less debt, even our kids can understand that.

    by TomP on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:07:23 AM PDT

  •  The people who wrote the 1st Amendment (29+ / 0-)

    were hypocrites--as soon as they get elected, they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:07:43 AM PDT

    •  Exactly-- what past is the diarist thinking of? (12+ / 0-)

      There was a small window in the 1970s, in some parts of the country, where things were perhaps somewhat like s/he is imagining.  But that's it: like it or not, America in 2011 is pretty well situated when it comes to free speech vs. most other times in our history.

      But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

      by Rich in PA on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:17:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, the Sedition Act of 1918 (12+ / 0-)

        was a fantastic piece of legislation.

        And who could forget the free speech wonderland of Joseph McCarthy's America?

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:42:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You should of, (0+ / 0-)

        And still, got out much more, apparently you grew up in a different land far far away!!

        CCR:"If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going."

        by jimstaro on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:06:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So you're okay with "Free Speech Zones"? (39+ / 0-)

        I don't recall having those until George W. Bush.

        "Protest Zones" were used in 1988 in Atlanta during the Democratic National Convention and again during the WTO protests in 1999, but it wasn't until Bushie that "Free Speech Zones" were used extensively.

        This is our new norm in this country. As far as "positioning" our free speech I'd say weren't not doing well at all.

        I won't even get into media blackouts, twitter and youtube censoring....

        I think "Free Speech Zones" is Orwellian enough for one debate about America's so-called free speech.

        Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

        by Methinks They Lie on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:06:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Time, place and manner restrictions date back (11+ / 0-)

          to the days of FDR.    "Free Speech Zones" are a kind of time, place, and manner restriction, and the first time they were called that was in Atlanta during the 1988 Democratic Convention.

          The notion that government can impose content-neutral, time place and manner restrictions is clearly constitutional, as the SCOTUS has repeatedly held.  If they are too restrictive -- i.e., don't provide a reasonable outlet for the exercise of First Amendment rights -- they can be unconstitutional on those grounds.  

          •  So they're a 20th century invention. (31+ / 0-)

            Maybe Orwell was responding to this new "American Free Speech."

            I don't care what "the court" has held. It should be obvious by now the Supreme Court has a different view of things than one who sees corporations as well...um...corporations and NOT a person. But call me crazy.

            The notion that government can impose content-neutral, time place and manner restrictions is clearly constitutional, as the SCOTUS has repeatedly held.

            For the time being. Let's not give up the fight for free speech because a conservative SC has held a position. It's never static and can be reversed.

            If they are too restrictive -- i.e., don't provide a reasonable outlet for the exercise of First Amendment rights

            I don't know, again, from my perspective (and others obviously) ordering protesters into a fenced in corral miles from the event being protested doesn't seem like a "reasonable outlet" for free speech.

            But I guess if China does it, well then so can we!

            Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

            by Methinks They Lie on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:37:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I completely disagree. (7+ / 0-)

              Time, place and manner restrictions are necessary.  They are the reason, for example, that protesters have to comply with buffer zone laws and can't block access to abortion clinics.  Are you against those laws?  Are you ok with large groups of right to life protesters blocking access to abortion clinics because they have a First Amendment right to free speech and assembly?

              I firmly believe that YOUR First Amendment rights do not give you license to disrupt MY rights.  I have the right to access the public streets and sidewalks in accordance with the laws of the local city or government-- your First Amendment rights do not give you the right to block my access of the streets, the sidewalks, or buildings like, say, a city hall or a court.  

              I think that reasonable time,, place, and manner restrictions are absolutely necessary.  Absolutely.  We can't function if the KKK, or some Nazi group, could simply take to the streets and protest and disrupt a city any time they wanted.  And if THEY have to comply with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, everybody does -- the most basic, basic notion is that they have to be content neutral.

              As to whether a CERTAIN restriction allows reasonable alternatives, that's a case-by-case basis.  "A fenced corral miles from the event being protested" would almost certainly be found unconstitutional.  A designated nearby area for protests that does not block traffic going to or from and event may be constitutional.  If you know of a situation where all protests were limited to "a fenced corral miles from the event being protested"  that should be challenged with an emergency TRO in court.  (When there are such "free speech zones," they are typically nearby.  But if they are too restrictive, they can still be unconstitutional.)  

              •  "Time, Place, Manner" restrictions are what is (9+ / 0-)

                currently preventing American Citizens to exercise their rights under the First Amendment.  When corporate entities are allowed control of public spaces, and infringe on the enshrined Amendments to function as they were meant to in 1788, the "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions are definitively Unconstitutional.  This point needs to be brought to the Supreme Court and argued.  The current situation, no matter what decisions have been made concerning it in the last 250 years, is not conducive to a Free, Democratic Republic.
                If necessary, new Amendments will need to be included in our Constitution to correct this outrageous curtailing of the rights of American Citizens.
                If all Citizens agreed with these rulings, there would not be Citizens in the streets in such large numbers participating in Civil Disobedience.  
                If one were to follow your logic, then non-landowners, non-white, non-male persons would still not have the right to vote - unless Citizens went out in the streets to fight for them.
                Laws can (and should be) changed.  The Civil Disobedience you see appears to be the only way to bring about such change.  Asking nicely doesn't seem to have worked throughout history.  Disobedience to these restrictions and loud protest has always been the vehicle used to make changes.
                Yes, those participating in Disobeying Unconstitutional restrictions should have every expectation of being arrested.  That does not mean that fully-armored, weapon-wielding, civil servants need to beat the protesters, shoot at the protesters with guns and projectiles, gas them with tear gas and CS, or harm them in any way.  For that matter, no one is actually "resisting arrest" that I know of in these protests, so no pain-inducing force is necessary to complete any such arrest.
                There are plenty of laws on the books that do not make sense.  There are plenty of laws that were on the books that have been repealed, as they have been found to be unconstitutional.
                Are you of the opinion that the laws that are being used to injure peaceful protesters are legitimate?  

                #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:42:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  huh? (4+ / 0-)
                  When corporate entities are allowed control of public spaces, and infringe on the enshrined Amendments to function as they were meant to in 1788, the "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions are definitively Unconstitutional.

                  A few things here.

                  First, if we're talking about the amendments in the Bill of Rights "functioning as they were meant to in 1788," then the city would be free to put in place whatever restrictions it wanted on free speech—even banning it completely—since when the amendment was first passed, it was considered only to be a restriction on the federal government. It wasn't incorporated to states and localities until the middle of the 20th century, and even then was incorporated by means of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in 1868, some 80 years later.

                  Second, if the First Amendment is supposed to "function as it was meant to in 1788," then telephone conversations, radio, television, and internet communication aren't under its protection, as those weren't under the functions of the amendment as passed in 1788.

                  Third, and perhaps most importantly, if you're seriously suggesting that any governmental restrictions on the time, place, and manner of political speech are unconstitutional, you're basically describing a recipe for complete and utter social chaos. Any small group of citizens with any grievance could gridlock an entire city—and given that we've got 300,000,000 people, many of whom have mutually-contradictory views, there's absolutely no chance that something isn't going to piss off a whole bunch of them.

                  Angry about abortion being legal? Just have a sit-in on I-95, blocking all traffic on a crucial East Coast north-south artery until Congress passes an amendment banning it; if they did pass the amendment, NARAL would do exactly the same thing until it was repealed. Westboro Baptist, who don't like that we don't stone gay people to death, could just cut off every bridge over the Mississippi until we start stoning them, thus cutting the nation in half, and there would be no legal way to stop them. Opponents of public education could just have a sit-in in the doors of every public school in the country, preventing them from opening.

                  If any restrictions on time, place, or manner of free speech on public land are unconstitutional, then each and every one of those things I describe is 100% legal.

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:29:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Okay, I won't argue those points, as they (6+ / 0-)

                    all have merit!
                    But, please, tell me, where, exactly, IS it okay to Peaceably Assemble to Petition our Government for a Redress of Grievances - without curfew?

                    Without all the little details expressed in the argument, would you agree that within the overall view of things, that the violent tactics used against the peaceful protesters are justified?  Are the police that have assaulted the protesters right in what they are doing?

                    The public spaces that the protesters have been occupying are apparently no longer 'public spaces'.  They are owned or leased by a business that is now determining what rights are applicable in that 'public space' and what rights are not.

                    Where can we protest without molestation by the cops?
                    WHERE?

                    #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                    by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:16:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This ain't rocket science (0+ / 0-)

                      Our entire lives are based upon choices. We have to make those choices, and so does the government. We have to decide if the rights of those who want to protest are more important than the rights of the vast maority who aren't protesting! How much freedom and liberty do I give to the protesters? They have freedom to do whatever they want to - up and until it starts to impign upon the freedoms of everyone else!

                      That's the point that you and your ilk always seem to miss, but that's a foundational point about what "liberty" is.

                      You have the liberty to do what you want up to the tip of my nose. You have the liberty to do what you want up until it creates a significant imposition on my rights to have liberty and freedom!

                      You can protest in an area, with a permit, during permitted hours, within permitted decibel levels, to your heart's content. And the reason you're limited that way is because it's unfair for you to take over the streets that were designed for and are needed by vehicular traffic. It's unfair for you to usurp parkland so that no one else can utilize it! And it's unfair for you to pollute the air with your noise and confuse society with your disruptions unlimited.

                      That's the point we've repeatedly tried to explain here. And that's not because we're conservatives - it's because we're wedded to reality.

                      •  Aah, hello Dolly! We've spoken before. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        iowaworker, RosyFinch

                        You have a follower somewhere that recs your statements, where is he/she tonight?
                        I'll try this one.  Okay, why is it not possible to share the park with others?  Can the park be inhabited by only one set of people at a time?
                        I saw an Occupy right here in my city, in which the plaza was shared by the Farmer's Market, and was a huge success!  The protesters and the Farmers talked and agreed to share the park.  The protesters went to a corner of the park, agreed to put their rental truck w/equipment in a different spot, and the protest brought extra people to the Farmer's Market, bringing them more business.  It allowed all the State and City workers nearby to come and 'gawk' at the protesters under the guise of being at the Farmer's Market.  Everyone was smiling, and everyone was happy.  It was nice.
                        Your constant defense of obviously unconstitutional rules and regulations are no longer amusing.
                        The First Amendment Rights cannot be abridged, as they are inalienable rights.
                        I'll spare you the trip to the dictionary - inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government.

                        Our own Declaration of Independence states:
                        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
                        I think that the First Amendment, being the most important one (look it up), along with the other 9 Amendments of the Bill of Rights - are what our Founding Fathers determined were necessary to secure our Liberty.  If our 'unalienable rights' include Liberty, then I think you have a quandry.
                        We are going to change this kind of BS, so you might want to pack your stuff and move somewhere else where you can hang out with your Authoritarian buddies.  We got this.

                        #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                        by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 07:42:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  It seems that lack of understanding of our (5+ / 0-)

                Constititution is a bipartisan problem. Thanks for shedding some much needed light on the matter.

              •  BULLSHIT ON TOAST. (14+ / 0-)
                Time, place and manner restrictions are necessary.  

                Cheese 'n crackers . . .  give them a loophole like that and the free speech zone will be declared to be the Sea of Tranquility . . . and everyplace else the law is STFU.

                It's like that bogus You can't yell fire in a crowded theater excuse.  The quote, for those who don't know their fucking history, was by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a unanimous opinion that an essary critical of the draft during WWI was NOT protected speech:

                The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

                Holme's clear and present danger  and the substantive evil was that young men might think twice before serving in yet another American war . . .

                I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                by bobdevo on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:57:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Of course I agree (12+ / 0-)

                that other's rights should not be impinged in the pursuit of free assembly.

                However, we're talking public places here, not abortion clinics, not synagogues, not the doorways to "Furry Puppies For Free" stores.

                Public places.

                I must apologize. Using my Lawyer Glasses I can see now that the First Amendment actually reads:

                Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (Unless the government deems free assembly as inconvenient at which point the government can determine the Time, Place, and Manner, conforming to the government's preferences, of said assembly so as not to snarl traffic.), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

                Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

                by Methinks They Lie on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:45:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The issue is that everyone has a right to those (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nowhere Man, DollyMadison

                  public places.  Not just the protesting group.  So, if a group takes over a public area for months, they deprive the rest of the public of the use of that.  

                  Just because a place is "public" doesn't give one license to deprive others of the use.  The streets, after all, are "public" but protesters cannot simply decide that they are going to block streets until the government complies with some demand.  If time, place, and manner restrictions on speech were not permitted, a protest group could go in the middle of I-5 in Los Angeles, block it in protest of some governmental policy, and the police could do nothing to stop that.  

                  And ANY group that could get 50 people together could do that exact same thing, any time they wanted.  

                  Or, 25 people could go and take over the mayor's office, sitting in and preventing the office from functioning, unless some demand is met.  Or take over the local courts. or the government permit office.  or the local library.  All are public places.  

                  We cannot function as a society without some time, place, and manner restrictions -- even on the use of public places.  

                  •  I've heard you say this several times. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    OHdog, lunachickie, elwior

                    Please explain, where, and on what section of Interstate 5, these protesters would be located?
                    I should hope my fellow protesters wouldn't be so stupid as to attempt to block Interstate 5 in Los Angeles.
                    What do you and  Dolly not get about our Inalienable Rights?

                    Here: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

                    The First Amendment specifically states:

                    Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                    The Supreme Court of the United States may only uphold the laws as written by Congress.  Since our First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law" - and, "Abridging the freedom of speech", and "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
                    Congress is constrained under the First Amendment (unless they make a new one), to not make any laws that remove these rights.  If Congress cannot make such a law, and the Supreme Court does not make laws (they uphold laws), and this is the LAW OF THE LAND, how are any of these 'restrictions' in any way Constitutional?????

                    #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                    by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 08:07:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  you actually believe this? (8+ / 0-)
                I firmly believe that YOUR First Amendment rights do not give you license to disrupt MY rights.  I have the right to access the public streets and sidewalks in accordance with the laws of the local city or government-- your First Amendment rights do not give you the right to block my access of the streets, the sidewalks, or buildings like, say, a city hall or a court.  

                you believe that YOUR right to use a street or sidewalk or park takes precedence over ten, or a hundred, or a hundred thousand people and THEIR constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly?

                that's just arrogant.

                blink-- pale cold

                by zedaker on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:47:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here's what I really believe. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Bill W, DollyMadison

                  100,000 people can get permits, and express themselves fully and legally.  Or they can gather in a public park, and (within the guidelines established by that park) express themselves fully.  that's within time, place and manner guidelines.  I don't mean that a large group can't every assemble in a park.  Certainly they can.  Content-neutral, time, place, and manner restrictions absolutely would allow that.  And I would fully, fully support the First Amendment rights of any group -- whether I agree with them or not -- to do that.  Absolutely.  

                  But can 100,000 people descend on LA, sit in the middle of I-5, and block that for all the residents of that city, causing major gridlock, because they are anti-abortion, or anti-same sex marriage, or pro-same sex marriage, or pro-health care bill, or anti-health care bill, or pro-tax the rich, or anti-tax the rich, or (name your cause here), and demand government action -- i.e., exercising their First Amendment rights?  

                  Absolutely not.  That's against the law. And if it's a content-neutral law prohibiting protesters from blocking streets (without a parade permit) then, as recognized by the Supreme Court in 1941, that law can be enforced to remove them from I-5.  No matter how much they rely on the First Amendment.  Government has an obligation to the OTHER citizens to enforce the law so they can go about their business.

                  As an other example, does a large group have the constitutional right to go into an area with residences at 3:00 in the morning and start shouting about (name your cause) in the name of the First Amendment?  Absolutely not.  And if it were in my neighborhood, I'd call the police to have them stopped -- even if I agreed with their cause.  As long as the noise and/or nuisances laws against that kind of thing at 3 a.m. are content neutral laws, they can't do that -- no matter how just I might think their cause is.  

                  The laws can be enforced so that the exercise of one person's First Amendment rights do not unduly infringe on the rights of others.  "unduly infringe" is defined by content-neutral, reasonable (giving some other avenue to protest, like during the day or not in the middle of I-5) pre-existing time, place, and manner restrictions.  And yes, I really believe that.  

                  •  You make some valid points re the law. (6+ / 0-)

                    Now, here's what I believe:

                    This nation is perched on the abyss. All three branches of our federal government, as well as the corporate owned media, have been thoroughly corrupted.

                    You can get a hundred thousand protestors gathered together, dutifully applying for permits and respecting constitutional Time, Place and Manner restrictions, and their collective voice in a population of 300 million people is but a fart in the wind.

                    These are desperate times, and desperate times DEMAND desperate measures. The current state of affairs makes orderly pursuit of social and economic justice through the Courts and at the ballot box pollyanish in the extreme.

                    NOTHING of substance is going to change in our nation now absent massive civil disobedience and general strikes. The PTB KNOW this. THAT is why they're reacting brutally to the OWS movement.

                    The PTB know that the current trajectory of growing income inequality and ever tighter restrictions on the social safety net will ultimately result in revolution. Their whole game plan now is to simply grab as much power and wealth as they can before it all falls apart. They delude themselves into thinking they can escape the consequences of the world they've crafted.

                    I'm not going to cheer on the police (and likely soon the National Guard) while they, at the behest of the PTB, act to quell civil disobedience.

                    CD is the last tool in the box. And if it's not used effectively now, the only recourse thereafter for the redress of grievances will be bloody and violent. On this day in our history, there are some things a tad more important than your right to enjoy a quiet neighborhood.

                    Civil Disobedience: In weighing what is legal versus what is just, I'll take justice every time. That means I'm sitting down with my goddamned umbrella.

                    by WisePiper on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 06:28:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is ridiculous (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VClib

                      We fully support civil disobedience.

                      We agree that, at times, it's not only wise but it's recommended that people disobey the law.

                      But that doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist, or shouldn't exist, and that's what people here at DK have been arguing - that there shouldn't be time, place and manner restrictions! And that's bullshit. There are incredibly great reasons to have limitations on the First Amendment!

                      •  Congress shall make no law... (4+ / 0-)

                        The Supreme Court does not make laws.

                        No law abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the right of the People to Peaceably Assemble to Petition their Government for a Redress of Grievances is Constitutional in any way.

                        Congress can't make such a law, and the Supreme Court is not allowed to legislate.  That's what makes our rights Inalienable.

                        #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                        by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 08:14:34 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  asdf! (4+ / 0-)

                          I weary of the endless prattle from defenders of this corrupted court's "decision-making" as if it's some sort of holy script that supersedes anyone's inalienable rights.



                          Congress shall make no law...


                          Congress can't make such a law, and the Supreme Court is not allowed to legislate.  That's what makes (y)our rights Inalienable.

                          REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                          by lunachickie on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:43:27 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  AGain, you're ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

                          As has been repeatedly explained, it's the courts job to interpret laws and the Constitution!

                          •  Are you paying attention? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Free Jazz at High Noon, pot

                            The court does interpret the law, but it doesn't WRITE the law.  Congress WRITES the law.  And, under the First Amendment, it very specifically says, "Congress shall make no law...".
                            Think before you speak.  If Congress is unable to create any laws that abridge the right to Free Speech, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and the Court is not allowed to 'create laws', how is any "law" that doesn't obey this Amendment constitutional?

                            Congress is not allowed to make any law that "abridges" these rights.  These rights are inalienable.  You can't take them away.  Congress can't take them away.  The Supreme Court can't take them away.  
                            Just because laws have been written, does not make them constitutional.  They typically only stand until they are challenged.  We are challenging the laws restraining any part of the First Amendment.

                            If an additional amendment to the Constitution were to be added - limiting the First Amendment, it would be different.  But, that has not taken place.
                            Building a house of cards on an unstable surface doesn't make the house of cards look any different than a house built of bricks - until there is an earthquake, and the house of cards falls.
                            There are hundreds of such "time, place, manner" regulations or laws - and what we are saying is that NONE of them are valid if they attempt to take away the First Amendment rights of Citizens.  Until these unconstitutional laws are challenged, they 'look' like they are okay.
                            I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when I first saw some of your comments - but it has become painfully obvious that you lack any understanding of what is constitutional and what is not.

                            #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                            by Evolutionary on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 09:12:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have no problem paying attention (0+ / 0-)

                            I haven't ever missed any issues, and given my training and my experience, your assertion that I don't understand the Constitution better than 99.9% of the posters here is laughable!

                            You're 100% wrong when you claim that none of the time, place and manner restrictions are constitutional. It's settled law. They don't "look" like they're okay. they ARE okay.

                            As I and many others have repeatedly explained, freedoms have to be balanced with rights of the other citizens in our nation. That's why, if it doesn't threaten anyone else's freedoms, you can play your music as loud as you want to, but if it bothers others in the middle of the night, the cops can compel you to turn it down or be cited for your failure to do so. You can yell "FIRE" out in the middle of nowhere, but you can't do it in a crowded theater! You can walk across the street but the cars have the right of way over protesters, except in areas with crosswalks.

                            Congress and state legislatures and local municipalities sure can pass laws and regulations that limit these rights. They aren't absolute and limitless. You're wrong. You're clueless. You're typical of the deluded here at DK who reject the reality-based community this site is supposed to be.

                    •  RIGHT ON!!!! This person speaks for me too. nt. (0+ / 0-)

                      #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                      by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 08:11:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  WisePiper - you are arguing for content preference (0+ / 0-)

                      You are trying to make the case that because your cause is urgent government agencies should look to the OWS with favor and not enforce their local laws. If there is anything that recent SCOTUS cases have made clear is that if local government shows any preference it is clearly unconstitutional. Local governments must treat all protest groups and speech in a content neutral manner. I personally support the OWS movement and their civil disobedience. However, local governments are within their rights to enforce all local laws including those against sleeping overnight in public parks and OWS protesters who do not comply with local laws should expect to be arrested.  

                      "let's talk about that"

                      by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 08:41:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  . (0+ / 0-)

                        REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                        by lunachickie on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:43:50 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  where in the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        One Pissed Off Liberal

                        does it mention that government in any form has RIGHTS?

                        government has no RIGHTS.

                        it has only powers and privileges and authority granted by the Constitution, and those are also expressly and implicitly limited by the Constitution.two of those express limitations is that there be no legislation abridging the rights of free speech and free assembly.

                        if a theater I'm in is burning, I sure as hell want someone to yell, "FIRE!" and let me know.  Prohibitions against yelling fire in a theater are  prohibitions against yelling so FALSELY... against lying and causing harm, not against free speech.

                        blink-- pale cold

                        by zedaker on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 08:07:23 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  zedaker - free speech restrictions (0+ / 0-)

                          This issue has been the subject of numerous cases decided by the SCOTUS. Since 1941 the Court has issued numerous opinions on time, place, and manner restrictions on protests and assembly. If you look at coffeetalk's comments you will see links to many of the cases that provide the current guidelines. You certainly don't have to agree with the Court, and many do not. However, local governments that are working within the Courts current guidelines can arrest protesters who do not comply with local laws.

                          "let's talk about that"

                          by VClib on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 09:30:45 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  They corral cattle, livestock ... (2+ / 0-)

                People should not be corraled like animals.
                People are thinking, talking, walking species.
                I disagree.
                A revolution is not like a court of law.  Be ever so sure..
                this is a revolutionary movement..Non violent but revolt just the same.   Trail of tears anyone?

                We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

                by Vetwife on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 08:13:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's too neat (2+ / 0-)

                As a point of practice, you're right. However, if you're saying that there aren't issues and moments when protesters can and should disregard such restrictions, you're denying the right to mobilize effectively -- to force needed change. Sit-ins, strikes, revolutions -- they depend on getting in the way of SOMEONE's rights in order to demand greater rights for the greater good.

                How we respond to deliberate efforts to push at the limits defines  us as a society. The police and local governments around the country are not re[resenting well.

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                by FischFry on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 06:28:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Look at the dates on those rulings. (6+ / 0-)
              I don't care what "the court" has held. It should be obvious by now the Supreme Court has a different view of things than one who sees corporations as well...um...corporations and NOT a person. But call me crazy.

              Time, place, and manner restrictions aren't a Rehnquist or Roberts court innovation; they were accepted by the court in 1942.

              Meaning that the Warren Court, the most liberal court we've ever had and the one that was responsible for most of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, didn't see fit to overturn them, despite ample opportunities to do so.

              Let's not pretend like time, place, and manner restrictions are innovations from a right-wing court; they're not at all.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:28:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  So, the KKK should be able to 'occupy' (3+ / 0-)

              the entrances to integrated high schools, and Neo-Nazis should be allowed to 'occupy' the sidewalks outside synagogues?

              Time/place/manner restrictions are absolutely necessary to make sure everyone has a right to enjoy public spaces.

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:52:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Those groups ARE allowed to do so. They just (0+ / 0-)

                aren't allowed to impede anyone, or be violent - like the police.
                I don't like them any more than you do.  They still have the same rights.  

                People are here defending the obscenely horrible actions of out-of-control police organizations while they quibble over fucking permits and decibel levels.

                I AM SO SORRY we are inconveniencing you.  We'll make it up to you later when you get re-educated (in the secret FEMA camps!).  Excuse and pardon us for not agreeing that firing a 2-pound projectile at an unarmed United States Marine Veteran, at point blank range, fracturing his skull is acceptable.  A decorated American Warrior.  Excuse and pardon us for not agreeing that firing shotguns at peaceful, unarmed civilians to 'arrest' them is okay.  Keep bitching about your neighborhood decibel levels and quiet time.  Keep making noises about unacceptable usurpation's of our Constitutional Rights.
                The People are in the streets.  You can hide in your house and peek out the window.  It has become very obvious that you won't be joining any of us.  We'll so MISS you!

                #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 08:25:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You assume quite a bit. (0+ / 0-)

                  Curfews in city parks and prohibitions on tents and camping are constitutional.  Shotgun blasts and police riots, not so much.

                  Also, was the FEMA camps stuff snark or serious?

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:16:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Do be careful about the FEMA camp thing. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Evolutionary

                  Sadly, not everyone here is sane, and we have Kossacks who believe Glenn Beck's CT.

                  I'm assuming you're not one of the said paranoid freaks.

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:33:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope. Never been a conspiracy theorist. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Geekesque

                    And - there are Kossacks that believe the excrement that comes out of that mouth?  Wow.
                    Glen Beck is the most batshit insane person I have ever heard in a broadcast of any kind (and I only listened once, and that was enough).

                    #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                    by Evolutionary on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 06:55:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, a few people actually believe it. (0+ / 0-)

                      See, e.g.,

                      http://www.dailykos.com/...

                      Close concentration camps presently in use by the US military or their privies, associates, agents, advisors, employees, officers, directors or anyone affiliated with their operations, anywhere and everywhere in the world.

                      Sieze and retool so-called RX-84 FEMA camps located throughout the United States, presently held by military interests, and make them available for use as government assistance centers, and not as concentration camps for the incarceration of US citizens as they were intended to be used.

                      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                      by Geekesque on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 07:10:12 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  No, they're 20th Century jurisprudence (0+ / 0-)

              The Sup. Ct came up with that language, but rulers and gov'ts have been enforcing such mandates for centuries.

              Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

              by FischFry on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 06:18:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Time, place and manner (10+ / 0-)

            Restrictions can help balance the right to assemble and protest versus the right of others to carry on their own business. They can't make protest impossible or irrelevant.

            Completely blocking a business deprives the owner of commerce and the public of access, but walking in front of it with signs is protected assembly. Standing or sitting peacefully in low-traffic areas of a public square is protected assembly, with room for others to pass, is protected assembly, irrespective of permits or 'zones'.

            Demands for change, including symbolic demonstrations of the effects of existing policy, are protected even if they offend the sensibilities of neighbors and onlookers. Announcing ones moral or political differences with a business owner, or apprising the public of contract negotiation status is protected speech. Physical intimidation or extreme verbal abuse of patrons is not protected.

            The law can support access to businesses and safety at public buildings without penning opinion up away from its target.

            Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

            by chimpy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:37:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The key word is "content neutral" - they (5+ / 0-)

            never are, which makes them fraudulent.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:14:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is bullshit (0+ / 0-)

              Of course most of the laws restricting these gatherings are content-neutral!

              Now, the recent law that was passed in the middle of a protest, denying protesters the right to assemble on the State Capitol grounds in Tennessee? Those are being disallowed, by the courts, because the law seems to be specifically designed to combat specific behavior by a specific group.

              But you're 100% wrong that most laws are that way. It's not true. In fact, in this recent swarm of protests, governments accross the country have given the protesters lots of free passes after they've violated all kinds of restrictions.

        •  Free Speech Zones don't represent a net loss (4+ / 0-)

          ...in physical and metaphorical space for freedom of expression in our country; prior to their vogue, you couldn't protest against a presidential visit to your town at all.  Or maybe you'd like to show me when people, especially from the Left, could do that more freely than they can now.

          But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

          by Rich in PA on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:16:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Bush zones were clearly abusive. (13+ / 0-)

          Because they targeted people due to the viewpoint they were expressing.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:19:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  As I noted just above, while 1A has seen its ups (7+ / 0-)

        and its downs over the centuries, it has been on a continuous down for far too long now.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:43:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's never been an unfettered right to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geekesque

          protest in public space.  That's because the public has the property for its uses, and it can impose reasonable regulations to ensure those uses.  

          Contra your "good old days" narrative, free speech protection is probably at a high water mark.

          •  Key word "reasonable". (0+ / 0-)

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:19:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes, reasonable is a key word (0+ / 0-)

              And it's entirely reasonable to disallow camping overnight in public parks.

              It's entirely reasonable to arrest people if they parade without a permit on public streets intended for vehicular traffic.

              It's entirely reasonable to force people off a sidewalk, and arrest them if they won't leave, if another group has already received a permit to disallow public access to a sidewalk for a limited period of time. This is what happened in a city recently when the author Naomi Wolfe was arrested - an organization had gotten a permit to allow guests and photographers to control a portion of a sidewalk for an evening, and Naomi and others tried to invade that protected space that evening.

              It's reasonable for this group to have been given special access to the sidewalk via a permit.

              This nonsense that you and others like you keep spewing, contrary to all the evidence, is sickening. Stop it. Learn from what others more educated on this topic have continually been telling you.

    •  Well hypocrisy is (23+ / 0-)

      as American as the Bill of Rights, but the Bill of Rights is a contract of sorts -- the fuckers put it in writing. A promise. Like Langston Hughes wrote:

      Let America be America again.
      Let it be the dream it used to be.
      Let it be the pioneer on the plain
      Seeking a home where he himself is free.

      (America never was America to me.)

    •  That doesn't mean jack (17+ / 0-)

      this is one of the weirdest lame ass excuses for tolerating this global anti-democratic nastiness. Blaming the founders for the present out of control implementation of 'Oligarchical Collectivism' is supposed to make it justifiable?  Were moving backwards at a fast clip here and seem to have unraveled even the flawed documents that we were founded on. took a long time historically to even get the Magna Carta or any rights human and civil. Where's my habeaus corpus?  

    •  Solidarity To Occupiers Eveywhere! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leo in NJ

      He it is Geekesque, Alien and Sedition Acts

      Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

      by rebel ga on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:35:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Alien & Sedition Acts (4+ / 0-)

      The Federalists lost their majority, Virginia and Kentucky dove into states' rights resolutions, all over a law with a three-year sunset. Jefferson denounced it as VP and pardoned fines and sentences after the election. It never had time to make it to the Supreme Court, but it was eventually denounced by the House Judiciary Committee.

      So, some of them were hypocrites, but the public noticed, and held them accountable at election time.

      Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

      by chimpy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:55:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some of them, anyway. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:50:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for Sharing That Video to Workday Eyes. (14+ / 0-)

    You might consider a brief transcript selection with one of the politicians' words about other countries' governments followed by something representative of what is being said or happening to our own protesters, for the many workplace readers who can't watch.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:07:59 AM PDT

  •  The very term (51+ / 0-)

    "free speech zones" should have alerted all about what was to come.  

    Bo Diddly Jr was arrested in a park named after his father at a free speech soap box memorial.  Irony deficient?

    I hear many say that the DFH Occupying don't represent them.  But they are the same people who won't occupy because it would disrupt their lives...

    We owe so much to the campers and round the clock Occupiers.  I can only make it on the weekends and I have guilt over that LOL.  

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix

    by Damnit Janet on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:11:18 AM PDT

    •  Free speech zones. (20+ / 0-)

         I hope that I don't live to see the day that America has "Bill Of Rights" zones. Go ahead regressives, just make it a deca-fecta. Gawd.

      The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

      by Hillbilly Dem on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:22:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Weekend occupiers (11+ / 0-)

      serve the cause as well.  And those who donate food, blankets, tents, tarps, medical supplies and even their own personal computers, serve.  The restaurants, gas stations, and other public buildings whose owners allow occupiers to use their restrooms serve the cause.  I am so grateful to you, Janet, for serving the cause.  Those supporters who are blessed to have jobs yet bring their bodies and resources when they can, serve us all.  One day, when all who want jobs have them, there may be no need to occupy Wall St. or any other street, except to rejoice in a more just, prosperous, and peaceful country.  

      I am one of those weird religious folk for whom the image of the Kingdom of God resonates.  Meditating upon the idea, the images associated with the idea, touches the deepest place inside me.  Although I realize the concept is pretty much universal across all cultures. the imagery may differ.  I understand the imagery, the iconography, of the idea of a just, peaceful , and mutually prosperous "kingdom"  are not necessarily universal, but are often recognized across cultures.  I was staying the night in a motel in a remote part of New Mexico a few days ago which was owned by what was obviously a practicing Hindu, for the Deities were represented all over the lobby.  But a huge rendition of the image of the lion resting with the lamb from the Hebrew Testament held pride of place on the big wall next to the front door.  I immediately thought of the OWS movement, knowing who were the lions and who were the lambs; but the image ultimately held for me the possibility of a better if not perfect union.

      And your gift of bringing your body complete with eyes, ears, tongue and mind to occupy your Street is very much appreciated.  If we all did what we can do day-to-day to bring about a more perfect union, there would be no problem.  So our work now is to do whatever we can do in the present to help this movement do its work, day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, year-to-year, until that day we take to the Streets to rejoice.

      •  This weekend (10+ / 0-)

        I've been dealing with some nasty health issues.  Suffice to say, I did the big part and had the colonoscopy and that came out clear but with other issues to take care.  I haven't been able to go my dr mandated yoga classes.  

        So this Friday I went.  I told  the instructor i felt so conflicted about going to Yoga instead of the Pink Martini march in Portland.  She said tht I should be protesting instead of posing.  She said that I had to heal myself before I could see myself healing anything else.

        Her teacher was in Iraq during the first bombing "campaigns".  He worked at a "clinic" for what we would call adult autistics.  He stayed with them and chanted to keep them calm.  So she shared the chant with us.  I've new to all this yoga stuff and chanting.  At first it seemed "silly" and then the tears came down and it all felt connected.  

        In my class, you meditate with an intention.  Mine at first was for Scott Olsen and then it changed to "outrage without anger".  

        What I'm seeing with Occupy is that we are all 99%.  So much is connected.  So much is caused from disconnectedness.  

        The stuff we need to do to support Occupy is the stuff we always should have done.  I see so much sharing and caring at the camps.  The way they help the homeless and the ill.   The way the try to help the angry people who yell at them.  The way I see people bringing crates of apples to anyone who wants them.  The camps are what democracy truly looks like.  America isn't about well dressed men in ties making money, it's all of us doing what we can do to get things done.

        Hopefully I'll be able to march this weekend.  I am having a hard time walking to the phone.  I'm lucky that I have medicine waiting for me to pick up.  I'm not more worthy of it.  Or lucky either..  It should be available to all of us.  

        "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix

        by Damnit Janet on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:44:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right on! How have abuses against Citizens of (5+ / 0-)

          the United States of America EVER been changed without Citizens standing up, and speaking out?  Now that we apparently don't have any public spaces in which to dissent (which is American as Mom & Apple Pie), what, exactly are we supposed to do?  
          There SHOULD be restrictions against violence, but restricting Peaceful Protests and dissent is not going to be tolerated any longer.  The People are taking to the streets because they see that there is no other way to induce the kind of change necessary to ensure that we, as Citizens of the United States are actually able to exercise the rights we were given.

          #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

          by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:04:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A lady at work (9+ / 0-)

            actually said that protesting and "raising hell" never accomplished anything.

            I looked at her and said, "some woman raised hell so you could vote."

            She wrinkled up her nose and moved on.  

            Nothing was ever gained or won by not protesting.  

            They truly want people believing that staying home or going out and shopping, pretending that nothing is going on IS the American Way.   When it's complete BS.

            "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix

            by Damnit Janet on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:10:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's always easier to accept little (and big) (6+ / 0-)

              bites out of our Constitutional rights, than to do the more difficult thing, and put up a fight for them.

              Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.
              Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

              It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.
              David Hume (1711-1776)

              Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
              Patrick Henry (1736-1739)

              History teaches us that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.
              Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1989)

              The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
              Patrick Henry

              "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

              #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

              by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:38:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You do know that this is a favorite slogan (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DollyMadison, VClib

                of my Tea Party type friends?

                The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
                Patrick Henry
                •  (And yes, I have friends who are (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DollyMadison

                  Tea Party types, even though that's heresy around here.  I also have friends who are vehement socialists  -- I like having friends with whom I can disagree politically.)  

                  •  If we all agreed about every issue, we wouldn't (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kyril

                    be Americans.  We need all points of view to make educated decisions that affect all Americans.  

                    I think we all have 'friends' or acquaintances that don't necessarily agree with our political views.  I don't find anything wrong with that.  We may have other things in common.  Not all conversations are political.

                    #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                    by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 03:15:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  And your point is? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kyril, blueoasis

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:23:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Just that I see a bit of irnoy (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DollyMadison, VClib

                    in using a Tea Party favorite quote on this site.  They use it to support their repeated calls for limits on the size, and reach, of government -- like to repeal the health care law.  

                    No substance.  Just pointing out the irony.  

                    •  That isn't just a Tea Party quote. It's a quote (5+ / 0-)

                      of Patrick Henry, one of our Founding Fathers.  It isn't owned by the Tea Party :).

                      I am no supporter of the (current) Tea Party, but I would not deny them the right to protest and speak freely.
                      They are Americans too.  It would be extremely hypocritical of us to deny the Tea Party the same rights that we are fighting for now.

                      If we limit ourselves to only those statements of the Founding Fathers that are not used by our foes (often completely out of context), we do ourselves an injustice.  Patrick Henry had major disagreements with many of the other Founding Fathers, and that is what is great about our Nation.  We have the right (and the duty!!) to dissent.  Patrick Henry, along with those he had disagreements with, hammered out a Constitution and many Amendments that we still live by.

                      Patrick Henry would have (IMHO) disagreed with many of the ridiculous ideas of the (current) Tea Party.

                      The original one, however, was very, very different.  And, therein lies the irony :).

                      #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                      by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:50:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Patrick Henry approved of *that* Tea Party (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Evolutionary

                        even though he had absolutely nothing to do with it, being hundreds of miles away in Virginia. There was not even any tea being shipped there, so he didn't have to do anything but speechify.

                        If it's
                        Not your body
                        Then it's
                        Not your choice
                        AND it's
                        None of your damn business!

                        by TheOtherMaven on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:07:03 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  No irony. Now, the fact that they too breathe, (3+ / 0-)

                      eat and sleep, that is some awesome irony, just think, we're just like them.

                      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                      by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 04:12:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  I dislike making military comparisons, but (7+ / 0-)

      I'm drawing a blank on an adequate alternative.

      Every army out in the field needs loads of support way back out of the range of fire. It's what allows the people most directly in harm's way to do what they do.

      (And yes I also feel some guilt over not spending more time out there, but I keep being told it would be unwise to quit my job.)

  •  I remember first hearing about free speech (29+ / 0-)

    zones and I thought "seriously? that won't take more than a minute to shoot down".  Huh.  Guess I was in the wrong country with a different constitution.

    My mistake.

    (hi, opol.  another great diary)

  •  And -- could you also just keep.... (10+ / 0-)

    posting this video?  Just plunk it down is all these discussions that are going on regarding public space, free

    speech, etc....

  •  Those of us who marched in the 60's agree... (24+ / 0-)

    Peaceful....non-violence...at least on our part and yet history still shows the true struggle...(the RW hasn't managed to re-write that history yet)

    We watched and had to endure... as groups like the KKK got to march....have rallies all under the banner of Free Speech...

    Government of the people....for the people...that's what it says...not 1% gets all the money....all the power...

    I add my thanks to all those who are battling to keep the People's Movement alive...

    And I thank-you for sharing your feelings with us :)

    “And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

    by JMoore on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:16:53 AM PDT

  •  I guess you are against buffer zone laws? (5+ / 0-)

    You know, those laws that prohibit picketing right around abortion clinics in a way that impedes access to those clinics?  Because if you are correct, then those laws are unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment rights of people who want to picket abortions.  

    I disagree with you.  One of the great things about the First Amendment is that it has to be content neutral -- it has to protect speech I agree with, and speech I abhor.  It has to treat all speakers equally.  That said, if the First Amendment trumped everything -- even those content neutral, time, place, and manner restrictions that the SCOTUS has upheld since at least the FDR era -- we couldn't function as a society.  If the First Amendment trumped everything, and government couldn't enforce time, place, and manner restrictions, then any group who wanted to -- the KKK, pro-lifers, anarchists, Nazis, whoever -- could protest anytime they wanted, anywhere they wanted, and do things like block streets, block subways, block access to government buildings, block access to court buildings, whatever, and the government could not do anything about it.

    I think we need to live in a society that respects the First Amendment rights of all on a content-neutral basis. But my First Amendment rights do not allow me to disrupt the lives of others.  They have a right to rely on government to enforce content neutral laws so they can drive on streets, walk down sidewalks, get to subways, etc., so they can go where they need to go.  

    If the content neutral, time, place and manner restrictions are too restrictive, so that you do not have an opportunity for free speech, you can challenge the restrictions on that basis.  One of the considerations is that you have to have an opportunity to exercise your rights -- you can't be deprived completely.  But government can require you to  get a permit if you want to walk down a public street blocking traffic, and government can prohibit camping overnight in a public park.

    •  On the other hand (10+ / 0-)

      brutal enforcement for misdemeanors is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Camping in a public park is on the order of failing to move your car-- police write the ticket and move on, not kick in your windows.

      Further, the Occupy movement is not just exercising the right to free speech, but also to petition their government for redress. Abortion protestors are not addressing the government, and they are further engaging in harassment. When Occupy protestors start harassing and assaulting passersby or blocking access to businesses or institutions, then the police should act to protect the public. Until the public is being harmed, the police aren't acting on behalf of anybody but the powers that be.

      •  Agree and disagree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, DollyMadison

        Violent action by law enforcement to enforce these kinds of laws is not justified.  I completely agree.

        However, the police absolutely do have the right -- and, indeed, the obligation -- to remove people who, for example, block public streets by claiming that they are exercising their First Amendment rights.  And, yes, if local ordinances prevent overnight camping in certain areas, and people do that, the police have a right to remove them.  Otherwise, these laws could never be enforced. If the police told the camper to leave, and he/she just said no, and the police couldn't remove the person, the law would never be enforced.  

        People who protest in violation of content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions must understand that they are engaging in civil disobedience (intentionally violating a law to make a point) and that they will be arrested -- after all, that's the point of civil disobedience.  

        And no, violence is not appropriate in making these arrests.  I absolutely agree there.   But if people refuse to leave, or try to make it physically difficult for the police to arrest them,  they have to expect that the police will use some measure of force -- dragging them out, for example -- to enforce the law.  

        Enforcing the law is not "acting on behalf of the powers that be."  It's acting on behalf of other citizens, who are entitled to have the law enforced.  

        •  Dragging a limp peaceful protester to arrest is (6+ / 0-)

          NOT the same as beating the crap out of them, gassing them, or shooting guns at them.
          Authority is being used to abuse American Citizens that are exercising their rights to Free Speech and Assembly.

          #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

          by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:10:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you that dragging (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, Evolutionary, DollyMadison

            is within the ambit of permissible behavior if protesters refuse to leave, while beating someone up is not.  

            I worry, of course, that some protesters are under the impression that the police have no right to make them leave.  And that influences their behavior.  

            •  Police have a duty to uphold the laws of the (2+ / 0-)

              Nation, and of their respective States, Cities, and Townships.

              Citizens have a duty to speak out against unjust laws.

              They are (for the most part), doing their jobs, and so are we :).  Some, more extremely than others.  The fact that OWS has brought the conversation into being is more important than anything they could possibly have done.  Awareness of dangerous assault of our liberties is paramount.  Then, and only then, will a conversation take place.  Thank goodness this is still a peaceful protest.

              If we so casually agree to dispense with little bits of our Liberty, then we have no rights to it.

              We should never trade security for Liberty.  Temporary inconvenience means nothing in the long term.  Permanent erosion of our most basic rights and liberties means much.

              We are still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, are we not?

              #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

              by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:47:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  But people haven't been "gassed" (0+ / 0-)

            simply because they were refusing to leave an area. The cops used tear gas and shot at others because things were getting thrown at them, and they were protecting themselves.

            If a rogue cop beats someone unfairly, then that cop should be punished, but what has happened so far isn't equivalent to what you claim has happened. There has not been beatings in direct response to people simply refusing to leave an area.

            •  That's a lie and has already been debunked (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              One Pissed Off Liberal

              several times.  I watched that many pieces of video, saw the slo-mos, the photos, the stills, etc.
              SLEEPING BABIES were GASSED.  I am nearby, I have been on the scene, and I know what the fuck happened.
              Unarmed American Citizens are being shot at by police for peacefully assembling, as is their inalienable right.

              What are you - Oakland PD??  Do you come here just to argue the police have the right to do what they have already done?
              How are police 'protecting themselves' by firing GUNS at PEOPLE.  From WHAT? There aren't any rocks out there on the streets of Oakland.  One protester picked up gas grenade that had already been tossed at them, and sent it back to them.  This isn't "protecting themselves".  They firing guns at unarmed, American Citizens.

              BLOOD HAS BEEN SPILLED.  Nothing will ever take that back, nothing will ever make that okay, nothing in any regulation you exhibit will ever take that away.

              You appear to be cheering the beatings of American Citizens.  And, actually, I think you are.

              OPOL is Right!  Enormous change is coming to you Dolly.  When it's over, maybe you can pretend you were on the side of good, and not the side of evil.

              #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

              by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 08:52:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  You're right (4+ / 0-)

          the law is the law and civil disobedience is about thoughtfully disobeying the law. On the other hand, context is important and when law enforcement engages in disproportionate behavior it certainly gives the impression that it's something other than lawbreaking that concerns them or their higher ups.

          We haven't seen roadblocks all set to crack down on the epidemic of speeders. Perhaps if the police got the impression that people were exceeding the speed limit in solidarity with OWS, there might finally be a reduction in reckless driving.

          •  Well, we see DWI roadblocks, of course. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DollyMadison, Evolutionary

            I'm not sure how one would set up a speeding "roadblock." But we can -- and do -- see what a lot of drivers call "speed traps -- where police have radar out on a certain stretch of road where people routinely speed.  All constitutional, of course.  

            I'm in New Orleans, and I can tell you that on a certain stretch of I-10 between Baton Rouge and Lafayette -- the Basin Bridge -- there are sometimes helicopters flying overhead to catch speeders, because speeding is particularly prevalent (and particularly dangerous) there.

            For this kind of thing, dragging out people who refuse to leave is not, I would think, disproportionate.  It's what has always been done in those kind of civil disobedience situations.  Beating someone, of course, is way, way, way over the line.  

            •  This makes sense coffeetalk. (0+ / 0-)

              I have said that the protesters should expect arrest for Civil Disobedience.  They are breaking a 'law'.  Their point of course is that they believe the 'law' or 'regulation' to be invalid or unjust.  Being arrested is part of the deal.
              And, dragging someone to arrest them is reasonable.  Beating them, as you said, is way over the line.

              #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

              by Evolutionary on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 07:13:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I get what you are saying... (0+ / 0-)

        At least I think I do, but I don't think holding up signs with slogans on them constitutes petitioning the government. I think the process is a little more formal than that.

        Having said that, I totally agree that the cops are way out of bounds. Of course I thought the same thing about the 1968 DNC in Chicago. This isn't anything new. People have been protesting, and having sit-ins, teach-ins, and be-ins for a long time. and they have usually ended with the cops cracking heads.

        I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

        by itsjim on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:42:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Red herring. Content neutral is generally a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Evolutionary

      myth.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 03:37:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course it's not a myth. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DollyMadison

        Let me give you one example.  There are, in most places, laws against lots of noise on the street in residential neighborhoods at 3 a.m.  If someone is using a bullhorn to shout about what he/she thinks about some political issue at 3 a.m. in a residential neighborhood, they can't do that, and if someone calls the police to complain, the police will stop them -- no matter what they are saying.  That's content neutral laws.  

        •  And not at all the ones at issue. You also (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, blueoasis, Evolutionary

          cannot shoot your neighbor and call it "Art". As I said, red herring.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 05:24:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But you can shoot someone who's threatening (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            And get away with it. Intent does matter.

            And you're wrong - laws have been specifically designed to be content neutral.

            No one is allowed to spend the night, legally, in public parks.

            No one is allowed, legally, to march down the middle of the street during rush hour, without a parade permit.

            And, in fact, most municipalities have given the OWS protesters quite a bit of leeway that they wouldn't have given other groups! In fact, they've been content-biased, favoring the OWS protesters.

            You're 100% wrong. Get a clue.

            •  Sorry, but the restrictions on crimes such (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Evolutionary

              as murder and noise abatement ordinances are content neutral because they aren't deling with speech. Things like parade permits, which do deal with speech are very much not content neutral in practice, and ditto such things as free speech/protest corrals.  You need to get a few facts, in many places you can spend the night in public parks, not tht that is a matter having to do with "regulation of speech".

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 07:34:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're still wrong, and you'll always be wrong (0+ / 0-)

                When you insist that restricting everyone's ability to march down a street or take over a public park isn't content neutral. It is.

                They don't allow some people to take over the park, based upon the issue that they're enraged about, and disallow other groups to do the same thing.

                That'd be unreasonble and unfair limitations on one group and unfair advantage for another group based upon content!

                There's one example currently of a ban on gathering that's not "content neutral", and the courts, so far, are disallowing the prosecution of the protesters based upon that ban, and it's specifically being disallowed because the ban was written as a direct response to the OWS protesters!

                That's impermissible restriction of speech due to content.

                Other rules that block camping in public parks by ANYONE are "content neutral". They don't allow anyone to camp in those parks where camping overnight is disallowed!

                I swear, this ain't rocket science.

                •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Evolutionary, pot
                  They don't allow some people to take over the park, based upon the issue that they're enraged about, and disallow other groups to do the same thing.

                  Actually, they do, and years after the fact the victims of the discrimination win a symbolic victory in some court of law.

                  Other rules that block camping in public parks by ANYONE are "content neutral". They don't allow anyone to camp in those parks where camping overnight is disallowed!

                  False.

                  Go look up "De Facto Discrimination"; discriminatory enforcement with respect to just about every law on the books has, does, and will continue to exist. In the arena of speech, protests, picketing and the like it is the rule rather than the exception.

                  I swear, this ain't rocket science.

                  True, it requires some awareness of current and past events, a little exposure to the real world, reading an assortment of news sources thoroughly and doing some street based participatory democracy. A few units looking into civil rights law doesn't hurt either, but rocketry isn't needed except to the extent that one should duck incoming rocket propelled gas grenades.

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 08:41:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks for providing links to back up your claims (0+ / 0-)

                    Oops, that's right, you didn't provide a single link.

                    And that's because you can't. Unless you provide a link showing that the Tea Party got charged a fee and the OWS people haven't been - and so the OWS people have actually gotten preferential treatment!

                    Really, you don't have a clue. Get one.

                    •  Sorry, but you're babbling. My case is not (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      pot

                      limited to the Tea Party and OWS and I told you where to look.  I'm not going to undertake some tedious research to demonstrate something that is an established matter of public record and has even been reported by the highest courts of the land.

                      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                      by enhydra lutris on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 08:35:11 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Now you're out and out lying (0+ / 0-)

                        This happens to be the type of law that I'm intimately familiar with. You're lying - you need to stop being so intensely determined to prove you're superior when you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. It makes you look REALLY stupid and shallow.

  •  This diary, in conjunction with Una's diary (19+ / 0-)

    about privatization from yesterday, go very much together in my view.

    I'm "THE" Troubadour," and not "Troubadour" without the article. We're different people here at DK :)

    by David Harris Gershon on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:19:36 AM PDT

  •  I Am 42. I Hear About These Zones (14+ / 0-)

    and I don't protest much now. But when I was a kid I could protest anywhere I wanted and nobody cared.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:22:08 AM PDT

    •  I'm 61 and I never heard of approved zones for (12+ / 0-)

      protesting the Vietnam war, I was in protests on campuses, parks, streets, and in front of govt. buildings (Draft Board, FBI, etc.) stores, you name it.

      I never heard of any place designated for protests, and I seriously doubt very many people would've limited themselves to wherever that 'spot' happened to be. The spirit of the people was not that docile.

      I know we know have that Patriot Act ,and barely a word was said when it was recently expanded and passed. But I say screw the Patriot Act, and the people that support it wholeheartedly .
      I don't think that 'the powers that be' have the power they think they do, and I trust the 'occupy' movement is making that clear. It ain't over but power is shifting back to the people because they are taking it back, occupying one area after another.
      Like the chants in the 60's said over and over...'power to the people'.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:49:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the People will continue to go out in the (3+ / 0-)

        streets until actual justice prevails.
        We got those rights originally because King George was doing what our authorities are doing right now.
        Injustice is Injustice, no matter how you might frame it.
        A Free People should not, and will not tolerate these abuses.

        #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

        by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:12:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not really, no. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, DollyMadison
          We got those rights originally because King George was doing what our authorities are doing right now.

          To use just one example, there hasn't been anything like to the Boston Massacre yet throughout the history of the #Occ movements. (The Scott Olsen incident might be the closest thing, but even that is a bit of a stretch in comparison.)

          Not to mention that another of the reasons for the Revolution was that Parliament raised taxes on the colonists, when they had no representation, even nominally, in government. That's just about 180º from the #Occ protesters, many of whom agree with me that taxes on the top earners aren't high enough.

          There's really no valid comparison between #Occupy and the American Revolution. Sorry, there just isn't.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:40:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I believe you are wrong here (7+ / 0-)

            The Revolutionaries were, literally, up in arms over a Government which failed, repeatedly to listen and respond to their concerns, as Citizens.

            They were sick of paying extra for goods from the Caribbean, which were transported to England and then back across the Atlantic to the Colonies - but England got to tax the goods because they had touched English soil. The Corporations (like the Dutch East India corporation) got to charge the Colonists for the cost to haul those goods back and forth across the Atlantic before delivery to American soil.

            The Revolutionaries decided that they had had Enough, and said so - you can read all about it here

            Pay attention to what they say caused their Revolt:

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

            Like the #Occupy movement, the Revolutionaries had been trying to work within the system but found that the system was broken.

            So they declared their Independence, and fought like hell to keep it.

            235 years later, it seems that perhaps we have come to another branch in the path to the future, and it's now our turn to decide whether we can survive in the system we have - or whether the time has come round, once more, to speak out these Words of Power...

            When in the Course of human events...

            * * *
            I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
            * * *
            "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy."
            THEODORE ROOSEVELT

            by Angie in WA State on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:21:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  WELL SAID! To add to that - (3+ / 0-)

              If it were only an issue of taxation (as it is viewed by people that don't have a full view of history) without representation, the statement above yours would make sense, but there were a litany of abuses and usurpation's that took place before Revolution.
              I have begun to post historical American Revolution documents written or provided in speeches by our Founding Fathers (see my recent diaries).  I am on a mission to re-educate at least the Kossacks as to their own history.
              If we don't have a firm grasp of our own history, how are we to prevent the mistakes we already made and corrected?
              The conversation has begun in the streets of America.  For good or ill, at least we are now talking about it.

              #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

              by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:56:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Free speech zones need their own protests (3+ / 0-)

        Those 'free speech zones' set up for political conventions or international meetings are not about ensuring safety or access. They're about keeping the rabble out of camera view. They're about not offending the tender sensibilities of the delegates. They're about shortening the tether just a little more every time, just because we allow it.

        Thanks so much to the long term occupiers, to those who prepare themselves for arrest. Thanks also to the legal observers and citizen journalists who help witness and spread the facts, turning the tide of precedent faster than the courts ever could do.

        Thanks to the renewed power of the people, I think the idea of the free speech zones might finally be vulnerable. How do you think we might best attack the practice? When the next GOP convention threatens to pen dissenters away from the action, should everyone refuse? Should some token number let themselves act as captives, politely protesting the event from within the allowed area, while a larger force occupies both the convention, the mayor's office and the police station demanding to better see and hear those captives?

        Bogus restrictions on time, place and manner demand protests based on inconveniently recurring times, safe but unexpected places, and harmlessly disconcerting manners.

        Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

        by chimpy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 03:48:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I recall protesting in supermarket parking lots (5+ / 0-)

      back in the 60's, for farm workers.  Never saw a single cop.

      I fall down, I get up, I keep dancing.

      by DamselleFly on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:50:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have a question then. (4+ / 0-)

    As the first amendment has become a focal point on this site - with varying levels of understanding I might add - I want to know how deeply invested you are.

    Setting aside the assertion that this whole country used to be a 'free speech zone'(It never was and was arguably far worse in the past.)

    I want to know whether you think it's ok that anti-abortion protestors be allowed to picket right in front of abortion providers? Without buffer zones?

    That potentional 'hate speech' laws be pursued and implemented?

    Because the speech itself is hateful and should be crushed.

    •  I don't speak for anyone else (15+ / 0-)

      but I believe that free speech, even hateful speech should be allowed.  I also believe that the right to assembly is just about anywhere as long as it doesn't disrupt traffic, business, etc. which would include family planning.

      Should the protesters impede access to buildings or become abusive or violent, they should be arrested.  I think that people who have demonstrated violent or abusive behavior should be subject to individual restraining orders.

      ...but that is just me.

      #Occupy Wallstreet - Politicians will not support the movement until it is too big to fail.

      by Sychotic1 on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:48:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rules for protesters at clinics (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DollyMadison, blueoasis, Evolutionary

        The buffer zones at clinics are a response to patterns of verbal abuse, physical intimidation, and blocking of entrances. It balances the right to protest with the right for others to go about their business.

        The protesters in question were allowed free rein, and took things too far. There were enough shootings and bombings to make everyone know what the religious right meant by "right to life". In that context, shoving, shouting and dominating an entranceway take on an aspect beyond mere inconvenience. It kept women, in reasonable fear for their life or safety, from receiving required care. It kept women from receiving abortions necessary for their own survival. It kept them from receiving counseling. It even kept them from receiving care unrelated to reproduction.

        To balance the rights of those women, some compromise had to be made. Forced-birth advocates need to either keep their distance, or keep moving, and let women pass unmolested. Yes, they suffer restrictions on their speech, yet we have not all fallen into ignorance of their views.

        Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

        by chimpy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 04:12:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Do you think that the people who (9+ / 0-)

      are picketing in front of abortion clinics are peacefully assembling to petition the government for redress of their grievances?  That is what the 1st amendment protects in this context.  Where does it imply that it should be used to intimidate a private citizen in the lawful pursuit of their rights.

      I don't think you have an acceptable analogy.

      I've always opposed "hate speech" laws.

      "UNFUCK AMERICA' Sign at Occupy Santa Rosa

      by NearlyNormal on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:57:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What if they say they are? (3+ / 0-)

        They're assembling outside an abortion clinic because they believe abortion is wrong and should be made illegal.  Sounds like petitioning the government for redress of their grievances.  

        •  But to petition Government, they would have to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          be at a site where Government (or it's Representatives) are.

          That is not at a medical clinic.

          * * *
          I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
          * * *
          "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy."
          THEODORE ROOSEVELT

          by Angie in WA State on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:26:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, you don't think that OWS should be allowed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bill W, DollyMadison

            to protest on Wall Street?  Because that's not a government site.  It's the epicenter of the private financial world.  And you don't think OWS should be allowed to, say, protest outside of Chase? or Bank or America?  because they are not "government sites"?  I would disagree with you there.  

            •  I'm not saying that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chimpy, blueoasis

              I'm saying that the argument attempting to correlate #Occupy activities (which are specifically about Government and it's actions - or lack thereof) and Abortion protests (which are about a medical procedure), are not equitable.

              You are arguing Apples and Oranges (as Herman Cain, the current GOP frontrunner, is wont to say).

              Just because there is a determined group of people in this country who are bent on enforcing their personal religious beliefs on the rest of us, it doesn't make it a political movement.  Separation of Church and State exists for a good reason - religious beliefs should not and shall not be the guiding light for our political system.

              It says so, right in the US Constitution.

              US Constitution, Article XI
              The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

              Which would include a 'religous test' or affirmation of a view that finds abortion to be "a sin", and thus should not be legal - which, after all, is the entire argument FOR the anti-abortion crowd. Their 'god' says it is bad, so it must not be allowed.

              Your turn.

              * * *
              I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
              * * *
              "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy."
              THEODORE ROOSEVELT

              by Angie in WA State on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:05:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Disagree (5+ / 0-)

                Abortion protests are generally dominated by religious groups. But the issue they are protesting is that they believe that abortion - equals the destruction of human being.

                We know scientifically, that abortion is the termination of a fetus - which in our country does not have the same legal rights as a baby that is one second outside of uterus.

                Since government is in the business of determining personhood, the anti-abortion crowd is petitioning against what they she see as an injustice.

                The abortion procedure = the act being protested
                Abortion Law created by the government =  the petition being addressed.

                Criminal acts by the banks = the act that is being protested.
                The governments oversight = petition that is being addressed.

                As for the separation of church and state I think you may need a little refresher with Jefferson and the constitution.

                The 1st amendment protects all  speech, not just political speech within the given confines of the law and its interpretation.

                •  Also, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib, DollyMadison
                  US Constitution, Article XI
                  The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

                  This doesn't apply to your argument in the slightest in this context.

                  Feel free to cite specific case law if you disagree.

                •  re: Jefferson and Separation of Church and State (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis, Evolutionary

                  I can't tell what you are referring to, but here is my opinion, based on historical data...

                  Jefferson wrote the following in response to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 (see link to Library of Congress)

                  To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

                  Gentlemen

                     The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

                     Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

                     I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

                  Th Jefferson
                  Jan. 1. 1802.

                  [emphasis added]

                  Jefferson, reportedly a religious man, but a Deist, rather than a Christian, hence his Jefferson Bible, was specific and particular in his word usage in the letter to the Danbury Baptists - in that they were searching for an official State Religion and he was disappointing them in his response.

                  You may disagree, but that is my thinking on the matter.

                  * * *
                  I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
                  * * *
                  "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy."
                  THEODORE ROOSEVELT

                  by Angie in WA State on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:47:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Abortion protests most emphatically ARE (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                campionrules, VClib, DollyMadison

                about government.  The protesters want government to outlaw abortion.  After all, if they only wanted to make sure that they themselves would not have abortions, nobody would have a problem with that.  It's the fact that they think government should be able to outlaw abortions for others that is the issue.  

                And if you don't think abortion is a political issue, I don't know what to tell you.  The reason half the Republicans vote the way they do is because they want to elect a President who will nominate Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.  

                Saying that abortion is not a political issue is like saying that same-sex marriage is not a political issue.  It most emphatically is -- it is a dispute over what THE GOVERNMENT should do.  

                Separation of powers does NOT -- NOT NOT NOT -- mean that people cannot base political positions on their own religious beliefs -- or lack thereof.  You gave me an argument why you think Roe v. Wade was correctly decided (although it was a different justification than the one the SCOTUS actually used).  That's not an argument that abortion is not ALSO a political issue.  Religious beliefs have been the basis for some people's political positions since the beginning of this country.  Religious beliefs were the basis for some people's opposition to slavery, for pete's sake.  Slavery was a moral and a religious issue -- but it was ALSO a political issue.  

                The fact that some people base a political position on  their own religious belief does NOT mean that the political position is not a "political issue." It can be both -- as has always been the case in our country.  Government cannot have a religious position.  But people can USE their own religious beliefs to form a political position.  They can use whatever they want -- the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Morman, or the Harry Potter series -- to form the basis of their political positions.  The Constitution says nothing about what people must USE in forming their political positions.

                A political position is something you think the government should do.  Abortion protesters think (1) the Supreme Court should overrule Roe v. Wade (some people take the same position on the grounds of constitutional interpretation rather than religion, by the way); and (2) they should elect a President who promises to nominate strict constructionalist type judges who will overturn "right to privacy" rulings because the Constitution nowhere mentions a right to privacy.  That's as political as you can get.  

              •  Angie - I also disagree (0+ / 0-)

                Your understanding of the limitations of church and state are not correct. While there can be no religious test for candidates any voter can use a religious test to decide who to vote for and any office holder can use religion to guide their political decisions. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the influence of religion on legislative action. What the Constitution prohibits is the establishment of an official religion.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 07:50:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  If Wall St is the real seat of power, ... (4+ / 0-)

              ... then protesting at Wall St is appropriate. If Wall St has undue influence on government, then it is appropriate to shame our leaders by speaking to them at their Wall St. address instead of their nominal offices.

              If the message of the protest demands the use of a time, place and manner to express it, then that protest overrides the concerns of convenience, and it needs to be accommodated to the extent safety permits.

              Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

              by chimpy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 03:55:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Since we live in an Oligarchy, Wall Street is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chimpy

                the perfect place to petition the government.  Check out historical references to "the power of the purse".  Wall Street has the Power of the Purse, and is in many ways, a type of government.  

                #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

                by Evolutionary on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 07:25:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  They certainly believe they are (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, VClib, DollyMadison, vcmvo2

        in fact, they have a pretty concrete, if single minded goal. That abortion is actually murder and that they are protesting what they see as an injustice to millions of 'potential humans'.

        Look, if you think that they should only be allowed to assemble freely to address the government and not in front of a private clinic, then what the hell is the OWS doing protesting in Wall Street?

        But that's ridiculous, you don't have to protest in a government building to utilize your 1st amendment rights so that's just a red herring.

        Content neutral is important but the 1st Amendment is not an excuse to disrupt the lives and rights of others.

        As for the hate speech laws, that's a little over the top, but it's a bit of frustration on this site when people start screaming hate speech about something loathsome somebody said and then, when they find out that we don't have hate speech laws(thank god), they get upset and start declaring that we should - because they don't like what they hear.

      •  By that logic... (4+ / 0-)

        ...a protest outside the Bank of America (a private company), demanding that they stop engaging in abusive but legal foreclosure practices and imposing fees they're legally allowed to impose, would also be subject to the same restrictions, as that would also not be an assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:31:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When Private Companies own the politicians (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chimpy

          making the rules - the protesters ARE petitioning their (current) government - since the Government is now a Plutocracy or Oligarchy.  It is no longer a Government of the People, by the People, and FOR the People.
          It has become a Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations - against the People.
          A remedy is necessary.

          #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

          by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:23:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not the point. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk, DollyMadison

            The point is that if you're going to suggest, as someone did above, that restrictions on protesting abortion clinics are acceptable because they're private organizations and not the government, then it must follow that any protest against a private organization is similarly unprotected. Bank of America was just one example of a private company that people are protesting, among countless others.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:32:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It isn't the protesting that is the issue (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril, blueoasis

              concerning abortion clinics, it's the physical impediment of the right of citizens attempting to enter or use the establishment.
              Agreed, protesters should not block the entrances to a bank, or any other establishment.  They, should, however, be able to protest in the vicinity of any of these places (without physically blocking or being violent with the patrons of that establishment) - without molestation by the police.
              Everyone has a different opinion about what is an acceptable business or establishment - and they all have the right to speak up, or carry signs to that effect.
              The issue is that there seem to be NO places in which peaceable protest is now allowed.
              If the authorities in question were dealing with this in an even remotely intelligent fashion, they would provide an alternative location (not in a basement, cage, or deep in the woods or desert) in which to protest.
              No such areas have been provided for, and what we used to call 'public spaces' are now under control of the very establishments we wish to protest.
              No compromise is being offered.

              #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

              by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:07:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  And recall when Terry Jones wanted to protest (4+ / 0-)

      in front of the mosque.  The opposition to the right to protest at this site was simply disgusting, and the equally full-throated support of it now is obviously unprincipled.

      •  And now, politicians saying that is okay with them (0+ / 0-)

        to ban the building of Mosques in the United States?  
        Again, the First Amendment is being abused and spit on.

        #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

        by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:24:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That looks to me like the First Amendment... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Evolutionary, VClib, kyril, DollyMadison

          ...operating exactly as it should.

          The politicians are saying that it's okay with them to ban the building of mosques in the US. It is their right to say that, because they have the right to free speech.

          Were they to pass a law to that effect, that would be pretty blatantly in violation of the First Amendment, and struck down by the courts almost instantaneously.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:42:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Buffer zones and the areas they control are (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TexasTwister, kyril, blueoasis

      very vague in their interpretation.  Violence and intimidation should always be looked upon as restricting the rights of other citizens.  However, when "Buffer Zones" include every acre and parcel of the country, with no land that is included outside of them, then the entire country, from sea to shining sea has become a restrictive 'buffer zone'.
      So, I ask you, where, exactly, should we be protesting - and not with "curfews"?  Name the place, (and not in the middle of the desert or a National Forest), and let us know, where, exactly, we CAN protest???
      If all public spaces are subject to a curfew, how are citizens to Assemble Peaceably to Petition their Government for a Redress of Grievances?  In many cities, citizens are being prevented from observing their government in action (see Wisconsin).

      #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

      by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:18:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks, OPOL. I have always been a big (10+ / 0-)

    supporter of ALL our constitutional rights. The rights to free speech and assembly are crucial to our rights are citizens. I am disgusted by the so-called "free speech zones."

  •  LOL (5+ / 0-)

    That's about all I have to say. Ironic, in this community.

    •  Thank you, OWS (5+ / 0-)

      For reminding the status quo among us what we're supposed to be all about.

      If not for you, we might not be having some of these discussions.

      Never mind the virtual fact that if some of the OWS folks tried to say here in this forum what some are saying on the street and in their signs, they'd be mobbed with verbal nay-saying.

      But thank you, if any of you reading here have actually faced the police, have been arrested, have put your physical bodies on the line for all of us.

      Thank you, OWS people on the front lines. Just thank you. Sincerely. You are our future. Our hope. Our new voice. You're...  the real thing.

      •  Yes, thank you. American Patriots are in the (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TexasTwister, ZhenRen, kyril, blueoasis

        streets demanding their Constitutional Rights, and speaking up about all of these "Time, Place, Manner" restrictions.
        Obviously, there can be a compromise.  Not all "Time, Place, Manner" restrictions are wrong.  
        The question is, if there are no actual public spaces in which the People can exercise their First Amendment Rights, then they are being denied those rights.

        I have yet to hear a reasonable, acceptable alternative to what OWS is doing right now.

        Where CAN they protest, without ridiculous curfews?

        #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

        by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:29:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sing it (15+ / 0-)

    IT ISN'T NICE

    It isn't nice to block the doorway
    It isn't nice to go to jail
    There are nicer ways to do it
    But the nice ways always fail
    It isn't nice, it isn't nice
    You told us once, you told us twice
    But if that is Freedom's price
    We don't mind.

    It isn't nice to carry banners
    Or to sit in on the floor
    Or to shout our cry of Freedom
    At the hotel and the store
    It isn't nice, it isn't nice
    You told us once, you told us twice
    But if that is Freedom's price
    We don't mind.

    We have tried negotiations
    And the three-man picket line,
    Mr. Charlie didn't see us
    And he might as well be blind.
    Now our new ways aren't nice
    When we deal with men of ice,
    But if that is Freedom's price
    We don't mind.

    How about those years of lynchings
    And the shot in Evers' back?
    Did you say it wasn't proper
    Did you stand out on the track?
    You were quiet just like mice
    Now you say we aren't nice
    But if that is Freedom's price
    We don't mind.

    Words and Music by Malvina Reynolds.
    Copyright 1964 by Schroder Music Company

    "Remember Bob. No fear, no envy, no meanness" Liam Clancy to Bob Dylan

    by BOHICA on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:33:44 AM PDT

  •  OPOL - corporations are people? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, DollyMadison

    Really, I missed that SCOTUS ruling. If you have the quote from a majority SCOTUS opinion that states that "corporations are people" I would really like to read it. Better yet, do you have a opinion that states not only are corporations people, but they have all of the rights and none of the obligations?  

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:37:07 AM PDT

      •  shah - have you ever read the majority opinion? (3+ / 0-)

        The majority in Citizens United, which was supported by both the ACLU and AFL-CIO, took great pains to clearly differentiate between "human persons" and organizations of people such as corporations and labor unions. Your comment also shows that you don't have any fundamental understanding of the issues in CU. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law .........." and that was the issue in the case. The First Amendment does not grant "the people" or any specific entity any rights, it is rather a constraint on Congress. The issue in CU was could the McCain - Feingold law differentiate between speakers, creating a different set of rules for individuals, unions or corporations? CU ruled that all speakers must be treated the same. The issue of corporations as people, or even corporate personhood, were not even part of this case. However, you should not feel bad about your lack of understanding of CU. More than 90% of the diaries and comments published on DKOS regarding CU have contained fundamental errors about the case, the issues, and the majority opinion.  

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:02:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  but (5+ / 0-)

          By definition, what corporations do is commerce.

          Congress has the power to regulate commerce.

          What corporations do is never speech.

          Corporations can never have standing to challenge laws in court on the basis of free speech, because they don't have free speech.

          The issue in CU was could the McCain - Feingold law differentiate between speakers, creating a different set of rules for individuals, unions or corporations? CU ruled that all speakers must be treated the same.

          Allowing that to stand is suicidal insanity.  If a burning building has a corporate charter in one room, and a baby in the other, must a government firefighter treat them as equals?

          Corporations are created by government.  They have no powers or privileges except those given to them by government.  They are not free to do anything except what is permitted in their corporate charter.

          People are not created by government.  They have rights that exist independently of any government action.  They are free to do anything not specifically prohibited by law.

          I guess Halloween is as good a day as any to discuss the idea that government can create deathless monsters that subsequently rise, break their chains, and overthrow their creators.

          Passengers: Feel free to rearrange the deck chairs, but please remember that the bridge is off limits.

          by happymisanthropy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:59:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is just wrong. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, DollyMadison
            What corporations do is never speech.

            This is only correct if you think that "speech" in the Constitution protects only oral speech coming out of the mouth of a person.  That's just not what it means.  Even in 1789, it was clear that speech included newspapers, books, pamphlets, etc.  And corporations publish books and newspapers, so clearly they put out "speech" as the Constitution envisions that.   Constitutionally, speech includes spoken word, newspapers, books, pamphlets, drawings, photos (this is very powerful speech, for example, and have a significant political effect), editorial cartoons, movies, and even bits of electronic data that come together to get messages out on the internet.  It's speech if I do it on my own, and it's speech if I do it on behalf of my employer while I'm being paid by that employer.  

            CU involved a movie.  Constitutionally, a movie is "speech."  And it is speech whether a very rich person (Michael Moore) pays for it, or whether Michael Moore forms a privately-held corporation and that corporation pays for it.  

            •  Wrong. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueoasis, Evolutionary

              Government cannot create an entity that it can't regulate.  Freedoms that come from government can be taken away by government.  

              Passengers: Feel free to rearrange the deck chairs, but please remember that the bridge is off limits.

              by happymisanthropy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:36:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I did not say that, of course. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, DollyMadison

                What I said was that, under the case law, things produced by corporations ARE speech.  And that's indisputably true. The dissent in CU AGREED that the movie at issue was speech.   At page 32 of his dissent, Justice Stevens discusses that  "corporations’ First Amendment speech and association interests are derived largely from those of their members and of the  public in receiving information,”  Beaumont, 539 U. S., at  161, n. 8 (citation omitted)."  Thus, it is indisputably true that corporations have "speech and association" interests under the First Amendment.    

                Your point -- different from the one I made -- is where the majority and dissent differed.  The dissent simply said that, since the government could create an entity, it could limit the speech of that entity.  The majority said that "Congress shall make no law" meant that Congress could not limit speech based on the content no matter the source of the funding of that speech.  

                Of course, dissents are not the law of the land, and never have been.  

                •  but (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  shaharazade

                  corporations have no rights, especially and emphatically not the right to continue existing.  While authors have an interest in the publication of their work, corporate entities have no interests except those specified in their corporate charter.

                  Passengers: Feel free to rearrange the deck chairs, but please remember that the bridge is off limits.

                  by happymisanthropy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:56:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Again, even the liberals on the Supreme Court (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib, DollyMadison

                    disagree with that.  There's no question that, once created, an entity like a corporation has some "rights."  It has, for example, due process rights -- the government cannot seize its property without due process of law.   It may not have right coextensive with persons.  But as far as I know, no Supreme Court justice -- not even the most liberal -- has ever taken the position that "corporations have no rights."

                    At any rate, if you read the Citizens United decision, or the ACLU brief in support of that decision, it's clear that the First Amendment is NOT a right given to people.  It is a Constitutional limit on the power of Congress:  "Congress shall make no law . . ." (other amendments, like the 5th, specifically are a right given to "persons.")  The disagreement between the majority and the dissent was whether Congress COULD make a law abridging the freedom of speech if a corporation paid for the speech.  The ACLU, among others, argued that Congress could not make distinctions on speech based on who, or what entity, paid for that speech, and the majority agreed.  

          •  happym - many feel as you do (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk, DollyMadison

            and you will find some of your argument in the minority opinion. I think it is very interesting that both the ACLU and the AFL-CIO submitted amicus briefs that made the same case as the majority. So while the majority's view makes no sense to you, many constitutional scholars agreed that the majority got it right on the law, including numerous individuals and organizations who usually are on the side of progressives.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:40:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  semantics: if A=B and B=C then A=C nt (3+ / 0-)

          I fall down, I get up, I keep dancing.

          by DamselleFly on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:03:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I find this incredibly problematic. (7+ / 0-)

    The idea that anyone should be able to engage in any form of speech anywhere (the "whole country being a free speech zone") has some really bad implications that I don't know that you've quite fleshed out.

    If #Occupy decided that instead of occupying Zucotti Park indefinitely, they would instead occupy I-95 indefinitely and shut it off to all traffic, are you suggesting that they would have the right to do this? It is, after all, publicly-owned land.

    (For that matter, if the "whole country" is a free speech zone, does that mean you can demand the right to come into my living room and say whatever you want, and I can't call the cops to have you removed?)

    Even this part isn't true:

    universities were its cathedrals, places where free speech was sacrosanct.

    The "free speech zones" might have been larger and unlabeled, but there were still places where one was free to do or say whatever one wanted, and places where one wasn't free to, even on university campuses. If you stood up in the middle of an instructor's lecture to tell him/her loudly that he/she is wrong, and started "exercising your right to free speech" by disrupting the class, he/she would have had just as much a right to kick your ass out of the room in 1968 as I would if one of my students did that today.

    All of this is to say that your right to free speech and your right to assemble and petition shouldn't be balanced against the government's right to squelch that—I agree that that's authoritarian—but it should be balanced against the rights of other members of the public to the use of public spaces. You can't protest in the middle of I-95 because the people who drive on it also have a right to use the road for that purpose; you can't stand up in class and say whatever the hell you want because the others in class also have a right to hear the lecture. You can't occupy my living room because I have the right to decide who is and isn't allowed in my own house.

    Ideally, that's what the permit process should regulate—the right of everyone to use public spaces, and the principle that those engaging in a speech act should cover the costs for it.

    The existence of permits is balanced out by the fact that otherwise, a group would be theoretically able to monopolize a public space indefinitely, denying others their right to use a resource of which we all have an equal share in ownership. Should all public spaces really be first-come first-served, and if you haven't been camping there for a month you don't get to use them for your own free speech acts or for any other purposes? Permits are one means (and one of the most bureaucratic means, unquestionably) by which a balance between these rights can be struck.

    The egregiousness of permit fees is balanced out by the fact that otherwise, the costs will be borne by everyone. Should I, as a DC taxpayer, have been forced to subsidize Glenn Beck's rally at the Lincoln Memorial last year, as I would have had to if he (or rather, his organization) hadn't been required to get a permit and fund the extra security, portapotties, barriers, etc. that were required for his event?

    I agree that in many cases, permits and fees are onerous and oppressive, and used to shut down free speech, which is why I think they should be adjudicated not by city bureaucrats fixing them, but by a special branch of the judicial system that takes into account the various demands on that public space and the speakers' ability to pay, among other things. But in principle, there's nothing invalid about the idea of someone administering the use of public spaces to which we've all got a right.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:40:41 AM PDT

    •  Well said. A huge number of people here (7+ / 0-)

      think "my right to free speech trumps everything." That's not only wrong, but if not correct, it is dangerous -- people need to understand that if they are violating laws (as long as those laws are content neutral and reasonable) they are engaging in civil disobedience and should EXPECT to be arrested.  That's what civil disobedience is all about.  

      On the other hand, there are those who think that because what they Occupy group is saying is "right," or "important," or is "good," that is a reason that THEIR free speech rights should trump all.  This is the worst view of all.  Protesters don't get to decide whether what they have to say is important enough that they should be allowed to, say, block streets.  Every protest group thinks what they have to say is that important. Government doesn't get to make that decision, either.  The only civil solution is content-neutral laws -- no matter WHAT you want to say, if you want to march down a street, you have to get a permit.  No matter WHAT you want to say, you can't impede others from going where they need to go or doing what they need to do.  No matter WHAT you want to say, if you want to use a public space in a way that will cause significant extra spending (like the Tea Party did) you have to PAY for that, so the taxpayers don't foot the bill.  And that has to be enforced across the board, no matter how great, or how terrible, the cause.  

      That is the most important principle to keep in mind -- whatever you think your group should be able to do, you have to understand that the pro-lifers, or the KKK, or any other group you hate has to have exactly the same rights.  I don't want them to have the right to use free speech to completely disrupt the lives of others.  We need the kind of content neutral, time, place and manner restrictions that The SCOTUS has so often upheld.  

      •  I wonder how the diarist would feel about a (4+ / 0-)

        simillarly broad interpretation the establishment clause - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

        Should anyone be allowed to do whatever they want. whereever they want, whenever they want and simply justifiy it all in the name of the religion?

        Rights to this, rights to that, all fine and good, until your rights infringe on the rights of others.

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:04:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Evolutionary, kyril

          regulations on place, time, and manner?  Yes, if the state has a compelling reason.  Convenience and limiting police overtime expenses are not compelling reasons.  

          Passengers: Feel free to rearrange the deck chairs, but please remember that the bridge is off limits.

          by happymisanthropy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:05:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, the Supreme Court says you are wrong. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, VClib, Nowhere Man, DollyMadison

            And not just this Supreme Court -- it's been that way since at least 1941, through the most liberal Supreme Court (the Warren Court) in the history of this country.

            The test is not a "compelling state interest."  The test is "narrowly tailored" to a legitimate government interest.  And it is definitely a "legitimate government interest" to see that your free speech rights don't unduly infringe on other citizens.  As one legal web site put it:  

            There are, of course, many content-neutral justifications for restricting speech.  An anti-leafletting ban helps reduce litter (the Court overturned such a ban in Schneider), a ban on focused picketing outside private homes protects residential privacy (the Court upheld such a ban in Frisby), and a ban on soundtrucks at night helps people get to sleep (the Court upheld such a ban--see also Ward v Rock Against Racism).

            and further:

            Two cases concern ordinances, justified on aesthetic and other grounds, prohibiting placement of signs--one on public utility poles and the other in private yards.  By a 6 to 3 vote in Taxpayers for Vincent, the Court upholds ban on placing signs on public utility poles.  But in City of Ladue v Gilleo, the Court unanimously strikes down the ban on private yard signs, concluding that the ordinance fails to provide ample alternative means of conveying messages.

            So, sometimes -- depending on how broad the restriction is and what reasonable alternatives there are -- things like convenience and cost to taxpayers can be justifications, AS LONG AS the law is content neutral and there are reasonable alternatives.  

          •  So you're saying my taxes should be raised... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk, Nowhere Man, DollyMadison

            ...in order to pay for Glenn Beck's rally.

            After all, if Glenn Beck hadn't paid for all those police overtime expenses (and portapotties, and liability insurance, etc.) for his rally at the Lincoln Memorial last September, then someone would've had to.

            And that someone would've been me, and my fellow 600,000 taxpayers in DC—or, depending on whether they were DCPS or federally-paid Park Police, perhaps you and all other Americans as well would've borne the costs along with us.

            There's a balance to be struck here, I think, by all means, in not letting the restrictions become so onerous as to squelch speech or make its costs too high for those who can't afford it—but leaving the people of whatever town/city/state is hosting a free speech event to hold the bag for all of its costs also doesn't seem very fair to me.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:47:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Question (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril, Evolutionary

              do you think the Bonus Marchers should have paid the Army for the bullets used to suppress them?

              Do you think Rosa Parks should have been billed to pay for the bus company's lost revenue?

              Why should the victims have to pay for the violence used to suppress them?

              Passengers: Feel free to rearrange the deck chairs, but please remember that the bridge is off limits.

              by happymisanthropy on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:58:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you're suggesting that any police presence... (4+ / 0-)

                ...at a protest is being used to suppress them, I don't know what to tell you.

                Every march or protest I've seen here in DC had some kind of police presence, either to cordon off a road or keep the peace or just keep an eye on things to make sure they didn't get out of hand. In only a few of those cases would I have characterized their actions as "suppressive," and those cases are dwarfed by those where I'd characterize the police's actions as "facilitative" of the speech act.

                Moreover, it's not like police are the only cost involved in staging a major event like Glenn Beck's; should all of those costs have been borne by the taxpayers as well?

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:06:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  It's a tug of war.... (4+ / 0-)

      ....and it's our turn to tug.

      I just posted, about a half-hour before this diarist, on The Occupy Movement, Public Space, and UC Berkeley's Free Speech Monument.

      In it, I talk about the so-called "Free Speech Monument" on the UC Berkeley campus, which (in my view) the university administration permitted because its implication is that free speech is confined to a circle six inches in diameter off to the side of Sproul Plaza.

      That's the other side tugging.

      •  I totally understand and agree with that. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, DollyMadison

        I think it's definitely too restrictive right now, and oppose most of the actions taken by city officials against various #Occupy movements. I think the permitting process, as it is right now, is too restrictive in squelching free speech, and is often used not as a balance of one citizen or group's rights to use public space against others' rights to use it, but as a means of shutting down speech that city officials don't like.

        In that context, I think things should swing over more to the side of allowing more speech rather than less.

        But you're not going to win many allies by going to the other extreme and suggesting that anyone should be allowed to engage in any kind of speech act in any publicly-owned space at any time, or that time/space/manner restrictions as a whole are illegal, immoral, or unconstitutional. Most reasonable people will agree that at least some such restrictions are necessary, in order to prevent small groups of people from being able to shut down entire cities.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:36:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The "argument" that drives me crazy (0+ / 0-)

          Is the one where they say "well, these protesters were peaceful", and because they were peaceful, they shouldn't have been arrested - as though if you're peaceful, you should still be allowed to trespass, and you should be able to ignore lawful orders from cops!

          •  In this instance, you are correct Dolly. (0+ / 0-)

            Peaceful protesters should have no expectation that police won't arrest them simply because they are peaceful.
            Offering yourself up for arrest to bring attention to the idea that a law or regulation is unjust is the idea behind Civil Disobedience.
            However, beating, gassing, or shooting at these peaceful protesters is just plain wrong.

            #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

            by Evolutionary on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 07:38:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Its more than just "Free speech" (23+ / 0-)

    This is what its about.

    ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    "Remember Bob. No fear, no envy, no meanness" Liam Clancy to Bob Dylan

    by BOHICA on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:41:52 AM PDT

  •  Got a question... (10+ / 0-)

    ..if I am not in a "free speech zone," what must I say or not say lest I get beaten to a bloody pulp by the Tony Baloneys?

    Does anybody have a link to what manner of speech is allowed outside a "free speech zone?"

     

    When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in excess body fat and carrying a misspelled sign.

    by wyvern on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:45:03 AM PDT

  •  "Free-Speech Zone" should be an oxymoron. (6+ / 0-)

    Instead it is part of the parlance of our times.

    We have other oxymorons like military intelligence and friendly fire as acceptable norms.

    Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

    by LaughingPlanet on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:51:56 AM PDT

  •  Best video ever. (3+ / 0-)

    Watch it. THat quote, btw, is not from me personally. It's from the film. I posted the quote as a title to a diary yesterday.

  •  Excellent as always (4+ / 0-)

    The courage of the occupiers is amazing.  We must continue to support them in any way we can.  The 1% knows they can't put us all in jail.  Even the local news channels in the SF Bay Area are starting to do decent reporting on the Occupy movements around the country.

  •  Huh?? (4+ / 0-)

    Speaking of which! I placed this in a few others today but it fits here as to not only down in Texas but All Over The Country and what those We Pay, certainly not the 'job creators' are doing as to the OWS actions:

    Negotiating ones First Amendment Rights??

    Meet with the local pols on our payroll and work out new rules for the group's occupation of City Hall??

    Welcome to teaparty land in the new amerika, the 'homeland'!!

    City asks occupiers to appoint leaders after overnight arrests

    Oct. 30, 2011 - After a crackdown led to dozens of arrests early Sunday morning, city leaders have asked Occupy Austin protesters to appoint leaders to meet this morning and work out new rules for the group's occupation of City Hall.

    Negotiating with the amorphous group has been difficult because of a lack of clear leadership, city officials said. And though the Austin occupation has been largely peaceful, working with a steering committee of occupiers would allow for more consistent, efficient decision making, Police Chief Art Acevedo said. read more>>>

    Hey there pols, you want to 'negotiate' go down to the General Assembly and meet with All those attending, first explain why the heavy handed tactics and arrests which is wasting tax payers money at a peaceful gathering doing possibly some non violent and non destructive peaceful civil disobedience if any at all, you work for us not the other way around and certainly not for your big buck contributors!!

    CCR:"If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going."

    by jimstaro on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:58:57 AM PDT

    •  Abusive royalty and governments have always (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      One Pissed Off Liberal

      demanded that 'leaders' be appointed or identified - so they could imprison them or decapitate the leaders, and in doing so, decapitate the movement itself.
      I don't think any of the OWS protesters intend to put themselves into that position.
      What they are doing already is the best way to carry on.

      This will only get bigger.  What will the cops do when a majority of Americans are in the streets?

      A scheduled vote is not the only way that a majority can reach a conclusion.  Physically exercising our rights is apparently a no-no.  I guess we are just to send angry letters to them in hopes that they will listen?

      All major change in this country has been made through fist-shaking, angry people in the streets of America.
      Today is no different.

      The naysayers that quibble over the little bits and argue them to death, have no view of the bigger picture.
      They can't see the forest for the protesters :).

      #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

      by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:45:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All speech is free man. Don't cost a thing, cept (14+ / 0-)

    maybe a few days in jail or a rubber bullet to the head.  
     

  •  Finally - "American Exceptionalism" on video nt (7+ / 0-)

    May the poetry of your life never be beaten into mere prose.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:04:42 AM PDT

  •  I don't think it ever was. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DollyMadison, VClib

    The government could always regulate public spaces and the speech therein.

    •  They could, but should they? nt. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt

      #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

      by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:48:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DollyMadison

        My kids' playground, for example, is an inappropriate place for a playground and the government is right to restrict access to it.  

        Maybe you don't live in a city, but we don't have a lot of private space in NYC.  That means we rely on the orderly use of public space.  If you live in the burbs, I think it's probably pretty easy to say "well, you should be able to protest anywhere, but that's a luxury those of us in cities can't afford.

        •  weird typo there. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DollyMadison

          first sentence should've been "My kids' playground, for example, is an inappropriate place for a protest."

          •  I am subject to very similar conditions. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, la urracca

            I agree a playground is not an appropriate place to hold a protest.  My city doesn't include a heck of a lot of space for much of anything truly devoted to the public.  My metro is only 2 million, as opposed to the 10 million in New York.
            The Occupy Sacramento protest is still in place, with arrests about every night or every other night.  We had a possible issue come up on a day that we have a Farmer's Market in Cesar Chavez Park (dead center of the city).  About three days before the Farmer's Market was to take place, they approached us and asked if we could move the rental truck with our equipment in it (which was the city's compromise - that we can keep a truck in one of the parking spaces adjoining the park) to a specific space, in order for their trucks to unload and load where they are used to doing so.  They asked only that we share the space, and limit our gathering to a specific part of the plaza.  We agreed to it, and in fact, brought lots of extra business to the Farmers.  Having both entities there at the same time, allowed some 'gawkers', such as the local State Workers in the area to visit both the Market and the Occupy without getting photographed and 'branded' as rebels attending a protest.  It worked out wonderfully, and everyone was happy with the results.  Despite the arrests (which are primarily to make a point - Civil Disobedience), there has been zero violence that I know of.  The truce between the Occupiers and the Police is a firm one, with understanding on both sides.  They know we aren't going to cause serious trouble for them (other than their continued need to arrest anyone in the park after 10pm.), and we know that they won't hassle us during the day.
            Sharing is good :).

            #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

            by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 05:10:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  They're all saying (Hillary, Obama, etc.) people (7+ / 0-)

    should be allowed to peacefully protest.  Hillary and Obama don't specify where in Egypt, Tunesia, or Libya, they just state it's their right and govts should not prevent them from doing so.  I think it's time for Obama to go on TV and explain this to the American public.

  •  i have been insisting to anyone that would (5+ / 0-)

    listen that we do not need permits. That federal law trumps state and local ordinances. I don't understand the importance of obtaining permits hen all it takes is someone to actually sue the police for civil rights infringement. I don't understand how a case cannot be made that this is what is occurring.

    Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

    by yawnimawke on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:22:36 AM PDT

    •  Fed Law Trumps State Law (5+ / 0-)

      Only when it comes to medical cannabis.

      "Without LOVE in the dream it will never come true..." -Robert Hunter/Jerome John "Jerry" Garcia; -8.88, -9.54

      by US Blues on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:25:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point. I think Cannabis should be legal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        regulated, and taxed.  But, we can't be hypocrites in demanding "state's rights" by standing by them in one case, while being against them in another.  The law must be consistent.

        #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

        by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:50:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are wrong, according to the Supreme Court (6+ / 0-)

      of the United States.  This was decided back in 1941 in Cox v. New Hampshire.  "Free Speech" does not mean you don't have to get permits.  You have to comply with content-neutral, time, place and manner restrictions.  

      You need to read Cox v. New Hampshire.  A summary is here.    The full case is here.  

      Permits are necessary so that your free speech doesn't interfere with the rights of other citizens.  They have a right to use the public sidewalks, the streets, etc. to get to where they need to go.  

      •  thanks for the links, I understand the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, Nowhere Man

        the idea behind the ruling (and am making a connection to groups that I personally do not want to hear from regarding free speech rights) so I am willing to re-examine my own philosophy on the subject.

        I guess my next argument would be, time constraints. If one (or many) wish to filibuster (in a sense) the government, one should be able to do so and the state/local governments should be compelled to provide that space.  

        Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

        by yawnimawke on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:21:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's one of the considerations (5+ / 0-)

          with respect to time, place, and manner restrictions.  Those wishing to exercise First Amendment rights must have reasonable opportunities to do that.  That's on a case by case basis.  It may be that the government can prevent loud protest in the middle of the night, for example, but not at noon.  

          If by "filibuster the government" you mean long-time, ongoing protests, surely people have that right.  (Although government may well be able to enforce rules against camping in public parks overnight if there are laws against that.)

          If by "filibuster" you mean deny access so as to shut it down so it can't function?  No, you have no First Amendment right to do that.  The only way to do something like that is to get a voting majority at the ballot box.  Other than that, even a large group -- say of 10 million -- can't shut down the government for the other 300 million people.  

          The First Amendment means that government can't restrict you from speaking out.  It does not mean that government has to let you infringe on the rights of others.  

          •  filibuster by means of long-time, on going protest (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Evolutionary

            is the manner by which I am talking about. I do not wish to see the government shut down (no matter how corrupt I view it). I want to see the government represent the all the people and not just the few wealth ones.

            So I read the Clark v. CCNV and come away with an unsatisfied feeling. We can maintain a long-term (day and night) protest so long and we stay awake? I don't know about other occupy locations but that is what is being done here in Chicago and we are still being harassed by cpd. Now, I know that permits are not being obtained for "picketing" the Fed location, and are being told that if we are holding a sign, we are not considered part of the public at large and have to keep moving. We have also been told that the city is unwilling to establish a long-term location for the occupiers that would involve ongoing protests. While I don't think the tents are necessarily required for Chicago (we just keep coming back the next day), what I do or would like to see is an area wherein we can sit down (with our signs) and not be harassed by the cops, for the long-term. If the city is unwilling to comply, at what point does it become an infringement. We want to see change and are willing to be onsite daily until that change occurs.

            Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

            by yawnimawke on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:54:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm a lawyer, but I know that I can't (6+ / 0-)

              resolve that particular situation by comments here.  It's going to depend on the specifics of your local laws, and what specific alternatives you have.  I can tell you that, generally, large group gatherings are more permissible if they are in lower traffic areas like public parks during the day -- not blocking anyone, and not sleeping overnight.   If you can demonstrate that you don't have a reasonable opportunity to protest, a court will step in.

              Permits are necessary not only so that protesters do not block access.  In addition, many localities recognize that protests involve (1) extra costs to government (like clean up costs afterward) and/or (2) potential liability to government if someone is injured on the site.  For that reason, some localities require things like fees up front, makings sure that the organizers supply portable toilets, and maybe even insurance for the event.  That's not an effort to stifle free speech (unless they require these things for some speakers and not others).  That's an effort to prevent the protesters from forcing the rest of the citizens to bear the cost of the protesters' event.  

              Many Tea Party groups got and paid for such permits, which is why some are asking for refunds -- they argue that, if cities don't collect from the Occupy groups, they shouldn't have had to pay.  

              I'm sure you don't want your tax dollars to go to the cost of a Tea Party event.  Well, government has to be content neutral -- they can't treat one group differently because they like the content of that group's speech.  

              •  gotcha! thanks for the links and the input. Your (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Evolutionary, vcmvo2, Nowhere Man

                guidance has not only been enlightening (much to my chagrin) but also useful when discussing with others potential ways at working with the locals here and getting our needs meet without infringing on others. I understand better the requirements of permits (and speaking liability issues to me is one way to get me to pay attention) but I also want to be able to reasonably have a location wherein we can assemble to have those needs heard/addressed without having a cpd look-out.

                Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

                by yawnimawke on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:28:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  The fact that prior attempts before 1941 were (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Evolutionary, TexasTwister

        made to restrict free speech were struck down:

        Prior to the decision in Cox, the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, numerous ordinances imposing permit requirements on expressive activity in public places, such as streets and parks, because the ordinances gave government officials unlimited discretion whether to issue the permits. After Cox, local governments were allowed to regulate competing uses of public forums by using a permit scheme to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on those wishing to hold a march, parade, or rally.
         from Wikipedia in your link

        indicates to me that the Supreme Court did not agree with these types of restrictions.  

        Given that the 1A states that no law will be made abridging free speech, or the right to peaceably assemble ....I think Cox v. NH should be struck down.

        If the RW can go after Roe v Wade - I see no reason we can't go after Cox v NH.

        I fall down, I get up, I keep dancing.

        by DamselleFly on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:23:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If the Court had wanted to strike down... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, VClib, DollyMadison

          ...all time/place/manner restrictions on free speech, they could have done so in that ruling.

          They chose not to, indicating that while they didn't agree with the blanket way by which such restrictions were being applied, they did see the merit in the principle of time/place/manner restrictions as a means of moderating multiple interest groups' and citizens' rights to use limited resources like public space.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:49:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  These rights are Inalienable. nt. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DamselleFly

          #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

          by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:54:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  DamselleFly - content neutrality (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nowhere Man, DollyMadison

          I think the key issue of the pre'41 cases versus the more recent ones, is the issue of content neutrality. Prior to '41 local governments would decide based on who wanted the permit and if they were a favored political ally, denying permits to groups they did not favor. What the more recent cases have outlined is a set of guidelines and allowed local governments to establish laws within those guidelines, however once set the local governments have no discretion regarding content. If you apply for a permit, and agree to the terms of the permit, the local government must issue one to you. So the Tea Party and OWS have to be treated the same along with the Westboro Baptists, Quran burners, the KKK, and the pro-life crazies. That is not to say that the current rules should not be challenged and I think the OWS will provide some new cases for the Court to consider.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:58:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Permits are being denied for no good reason. nt. (0+ / 0-)

        #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

        by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:51:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Such as?? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, DollyMadison

          Are there examples of OWS groups who have gone through the permit process and been denied? As part of the process the groups must pay certain fees, have a liability insurance bond, and agree to follow the rules for the specific site where the protest will be held. Have OWS groups done all of that and been denied permits?

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:00:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, they haven't been denied permits (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            In fact, they've been given significant leeway, more than other groups have received.

            The whining comes from people who think that the right to freedom of assembly is unlimited and absolute.

            Of course, reality-based people recognize that it isn't unlimited and there are reasonable restrictions that can be placed upon that freedom of assembly.

    •  I believe that case has been made... (5+ / 0-)

      ...and has repeatedly lost in the federal courts.  And those courts are the ones charged with interpreting federal laws.

    •  yawnimawke - you are not the first one (6+ / 0-)

      This issue of balancing the rights of protesters and non-protesters have been the subject of many cases decided by the SCOTUS over many decades. The Court tries to balance the rights of all citizens and has set out specific time, place, manner rules that guide local governments who can pass laws that regulate the use of parks and other public space.  Several of the lawyers on this site, including Adam B and coffeetalk, have provided links to the Court decisions on this very specific topic. I would be surprised if the current OWS movement does not create a series of new cases for the current Court with the intent to make the rules more protester friendly. The key thread of the most recent set of rules set by the Court is that whatever laws the local governments decides must be content neutral, so that all demonstrations must be treated equally. Interestingly in at least one case the Tea Party is suing a city for the $10,000 in fees and costs it paid to hold a rally in the exact same place where the local OWS has been for three weeks, without a permit. That city has a real problem, and will likely have to repay the $10,000, because they are not treating all protest groups the same.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:48:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  my passion exceeds my willingness to be (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, TexasTwister, Nowhere Man

        reasonable at times. Coffeetalk provided me with a case wherein the SCOTUS defined the terms of assembly and speech as it applies to local/state requirements. I have to continually remind myself of the Skokie Nazis and their "march" and how much I vehemently was against them having any kind of right to do what they did. It is sometimes hard to remember that all speech (even hate speech) has a place in society when we are on the right side of history. Hopefully I will be able to control my zeal for practicing civil disobedience and not get carried away with the idea that permits are not required. If I want them for those shitty Nazis, then I have to play by those same constructs.

        Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

        by yawnimawke on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:29:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So, if a bunch of protesters are so poor that (0+ / 0-)

        they cannot pay the exorbitant amounts being demanded, then they should not be able to protest?
        So, protest is only lawful if you can afford it?

        #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

        by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:56:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Evolutionary - you are assuming too much (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, Nowhere Man, DollyMadison

          There are only specific situations when you need a permit. People protest everyday without permits. Permits are required if, in the opinion of the local government, there is a conflict with the rights of other citizens. So if you want to take over an entire park, others will not be able to use that park in its normal manner. That may be very acceptable if it is for a single day and the costs of using the park are paid by the protesters. However, you don't need a permit if you want to protest in a section of the park that does not prevent others from their normal use of the park. If you want to march down a street you have to have a permit so the police can make sure that everyone is safe. There is clearly some balancing and the courts have tried to find a middle ground. The biggest challenge for the OWS groups is that nearly every big city prohibits over night stays in city parks or plazas without a permit. This is understandable because parks and plazas rarely have the facilities needed to house people for an extended period.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:40:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are correct! And, yes it is a challenge. (0+ / 0-)

            Are there any public spaces anywhere near any of the cities in which protests are being held in which a permit is not required?  No curfews?
            And, yes, I am by no means an expert in law.  I only see an injustice and am angered by it.  There are many unjust laws.  Balance is necessary to ensure the rights of all citizens equally though.  
            I am most angered at the way in which these regulations are being enforced.  There is too much violence on the part of some of the police organizations.  Arresting someone is one thing, but beating, gassing and shooting at them is totally unwarranted at this point.

            #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

            by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 03:21:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Brilliant Diary OPOL (5+ / 0-)

    Keep communicating the Truth.

    "Without LOVE in the dream it will never come true..." -Robert Hunter/Jerome John "Jerry" Garcia; -8.88, -9.54

    by US Blues on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:25:44 AM PDT

  •  still love this one (3+ / 0-)

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 10:37:59 AM PDT

  •  Free speech zones (6+ / 0-)

    are like healthcare for profit, an oxymoron. How can they say money is speech and call it free speech? Who pays for the zones were supposed to be penned in to protest? OWS has shattered theses zones and is speaking freely. the hypocrisy in our pols is as always not surprising. What is surprising and wonderful is that the people are speaking and it's giving courage to all of us to speak out loud and clear about what democracy should look like.    

  •  This whole country used to be an open access zone (5+ / 0-)

    About the only thing you can do without an ID badge of some sort these days is go shopping (but that day is likely coming).

    Back in the 1950s, middle of a Cold War, you could walk into anyone's office (except for one bigwig, who had the secretary) and interrupt them to talk with them about whatever.  They knew the limits of how long they could be away from their work.  No one had to wear an ID, and only if you were in a factory did you have to clock in or clock out.

    This was when the hospitals were run either by the county or by a religious charity, the health department vaccinated everybody for free, and most small cities in the South had transit buses subsidized by the electric utility (the city contract had originally been for electric streetcars).  Kids could safely go downtown in small cities on their own (and did).  Walking a mile or so to school was not considered either dangerous or an awful burden.

    And the only thing folks were paranoid about was "the Commies".

    But in the South, it was not (although we kids didn't realize it then) a free speech zone.  White people of good will had to be sure they laughed at the racist jokes and watched how much good will they extended to "negroes" (the "polite" term in the day).  Lest they be considered traitorous to the white race and segregation.

    And talking positively about unions?  You were the mafia or a Communist.

    Le plus change; le meme chose.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:05:14 AM PDT

  •  As a hypothetical (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Evolutionary

    If you displayed a sign saying, 'This is not a Free-Speech Zone.' anywhere but in a free-speech zone, would you be liable to be arrested?  It could be construed as a political statement, or as an obvious statement of fact.

    It would be like putting a sign saying 'fire hydrant' on a fire hydrant.  If you held it, no sweat, but if you leaned it up against the hydrant, they could nail you for littering.

    When you went to court, you could hold up a sign, 'This is a courtroom.'  Probably get charged with contempt.  

    And they'd be right.

    Real plastic here; none of that new synthetic stuff made from chicken feathers. By the morning of 9/12/2001 the people of NYC had won the War on Terror.

    by triplepoint on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 11:51:29 AM PDT

  •  What is a "free speech zone?" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quasimodal, stolen water

    I've never heard of this before.  

    •  From Wiki (4+ / 0-)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.

      The most prominent examples were those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration.[3] Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope has been greatly expanded.[4]

      Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits.

    •  they put one up every time (5+ / 0-)

      there is a democratic convention.

      john kerry stuck protesters in a cage like a bunch of rats. seriously, this thing had four walls and the ceiling topped off with fence wiring.

      like middle aged grandmas against the war were going to be hurling molotovs at him or something.

      soo insulting.

      our one demand? return what was stolen.

      by stolen water on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:25:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow. (4+ / 0-)

        Thanks for the update.

      •  Yes, but read about the judicially-disapproved (3+ / 0-)

        violation of rights that took place in NYC at the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC.

        I was shocked that demonstrators were corralled so far away from ... well, anything. That the City and Bloomberg administration just disappeared them, that NEWS media did not bother to cover them -- until the people who were swept up and jailed, for DAYS, were ordered released by the courts. The City lost a bunch of suits over that, as I recall.

        We need a lot more legal push back against erosion of our right to protest. Where are our lawyers!??

        Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

        by Catskill Julie on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 05:11:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't stop the GOP from doing it again in 2008 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stolen water, Catskill Julie

          in M-SP. If anything, they went even farther and ordered pre-emptive home invasions on nothing more than vague suspicions of anti-GOP sentiments.

          I think those cases are still working their way through our thoroughly and deliberately gummed-up legal "system".

          If it's
          Not your body
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          AND it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:24:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Much has flowed from the diary, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Evolutionary

    the diary does not identify the university or whether is a privately owned institution.  If so, no constitutional right to speak exists on the University's property and complaints about its Free Speech Zone are unwarranted.

    •  Even on public university campuses... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, DollyMadison

      ...there have always been places where people were free to engage in any speech act, and places where freedom of speech was restricted. There were more spaces then, and they weren't labeled as such, but that doesn't change the fact that it's never been the case that all speech was completely free everywhere on a university campus.

      If a student stood up in a state university class, loudly disrupted the instructor, and stopped the lecture in order to make a political point, the instructor would've been just as free to boot their ass out of the lecture hall in 1968 as I would be to boot their ass out today, and if they refused to leave the instructor then would've been just as free to have the cops haul them out of there as I would be today.

      That it's on publicly-owned land doesn't make a whit of difference in that regard.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:53:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  they taken everything else from us. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Evolutionary, BigAlinWashSt

    they want to deny us this too?

    gawd, i want to throw something.

    our one demand? return what was stolen.

    by stolen water on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:19:05 PM PDT

  •  Judging by the comments here... (8+ / 0-)

    ...a substantial number of people on this site have a really cramped, constipated, self-centered view of First Amendment rights.  No wonder they are so easily chipped away.

    We reach for the stars with shaking hands in bare-knuckle times.

    by TheOrchid on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:30:11 PM PDT

    •  are they the same ones who nitpick (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pot, blueoasis

      about people's appearance?

      our one demand? return what was stolen.

      by stolen water on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:34:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  These rights have definitely been 'chipped' away (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, stolen water

      sort of like the story of the frog being boiled to death in a pot of water because the heating of the water was so gradual.  By the time the frog realizes the danger it is in, it's too late, and he dies.
      It isn't too late folks.  The water is hot, but we can still get out of it.
      Accepting these little bites out of our Rights isn't acceptable.

      #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

      by Evolutionary on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:03:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  TheO - I think you are confusing two issues (4+ / 0-)

      There are lots of people who are writing here at DKOS that permits are unconstitutional, or that the local city or county can't restrict assess to public parks, or the police can't interfere with a peaceful demonstration. What some of us are writing is that the current state of the law allows cities to require permits for activities such as overnight stays, that based on a set of SCOTUS guidelines local governments can have laws that restrict access to public property and the police can arrest and remove people if they fail to disburse when asked by the police. People writing here seem to have little understanding of the current state of the time, place, manner restrictions that the SCOTUS has allowed. That does NOT mean that we agree with the SCOTUS decisions, or that we don't support the protesters, their civil disobedience, or their challenges to the current state of the law. We are just trying to help people understand what the law is today.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 04:40:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nothing to add, myself... (4+ / 0-)

    But right on, and I'll let this speak for me!

    (sadly embedding disabled)

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way.

    Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    And the truth is there is terribly wrong with this country isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and depression.

    And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.

    How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

    I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which CONSPIRED to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor.

    He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent...

    Remember, remember, the fifth of November.

  •  The big step backwards IMO (4+ / 0-)

    was the "Free Speech Zone" they used at the Boston Democratic Party nominating convention in 2004, relegating dissent to what was a veal pen of a space whilst Kerry promoted his prowar agenda to a bunch of disagreeing delegates inside the convention hall.

    "But it ain't about who ya love, see it's all about do ya love," -Michael Franti

    by Cassiodorus on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:39:45 PM PDT

    •  It didn't start with Kerry (0+ / 0-)

      and his big mistake was co-opting the tactics of the GOP to serve his own ends.  You cannot do that and come out with clean hands.

      If it's
      Not your body
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      AND it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:28:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Occupy Seattle isn't going away anytime soon (4+ / 0-)

    I'm posting this from Occupy Seattle's new camp.

    Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

    by Lefty Coaster on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:42:56 PM PDT

  •  Bwa-ha-ha-ha (3+ / 0-)

    well, there have been isolated times and spaces in which free speech was permitted.

    But only when and if THEY are either uninterested or overlook the irritant.

    Once they figure out you actually are saying something - as opposed to the Tea Partiers bleating out Fox News Talking points . . . they'll get around to reading the riot act.

    For comparative purposes, the trouble at Kent was occasioned when a US president took it upon himself to bomb a foreign sovereign nation and to send troops across its border, violating international law and Cambodia's territorial integrity, without any authorization whatsoever.

    And the murder at Kent was preceded by actual formal reading of the riot act by the National Guard . . .

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 12:50:19 PM PDT

  •  When was this? (5+ / 0-)

    I think you're fictionalizing history on the basis of an ideal.  The point is that we have to create a nation where freedom of speech is sacrosanct on an ongoing basis - that has been the struggle since day one of this nation.  The unfortunate historical fact is that while euphemisms like "free speech zone" may not have been in use in the past, the authorities had far greater latitude to bust up anyone who "stepped out of line" - they used live ammunition on union strikers, beat people to death, used fire hoses and attack dogs as a matter of course, etc. etc.  You're trivializing the work ahead of us by pretending "all we have to do" is return to the past.

    The conundrum of stable democracy: Reform requires the consent of the corrupt.

    by Troubadour on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 01:15:35 PM PDT

  •  Republished to Group W (2+ / 0-)

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:10:53 PM PDT

  •  It's all very simple really. You have the right (2+ / 0-)

    of free speech if: 1) you are Republican in name and spirit only; 2) you vote Republican; 3) you rally/protest/pack heat at Democratic political events; 4) you incite/dogwhistle others to undermine/discredit/silence/injure/maim/kill DDemocraticFH's aka Occupy protestors; 5) financially support any/all of the above; and 6) hate DFHs, wish the peasants would die and decrease the surplus population - and loudly proudly shriek that sentiment from the rooftops.

    See?  Easy-peasy-pie!!

    When everybody talkin' all at once no one can hear the wise one speak, So just be still and silence will provide the wisdom that you seek - by Tori del Allen

    by Dumas EagerSeton on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:17:11 PM PDT

  •  I Love You, OPOL!!! (2+ / 0-)

    nuff said.

    ::

    Everybody needs Toucan stubs! ~~ Herman Cain BLR

    by vicki on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:35:30 PM PDT

  •  There's a way to bypass a lot of this, (2+ / 0-)

    it isn't as if people haven't been protesting the unjustness of the authorities for all recorded history; nor the authorities (being in fact, unjust) haven't come up with effective ways to suppress, minimize, ameliorate, or co-opt the protests.

    This diary from awhile back tried to explore some new territory, and the premise of it is that all the nation is in fact a free speech zone and there's a way to walk right by all the traditional obstacles to protest from which humanity has suffered.

    Let them stop a protest that's happening on every street everywhere. Each person a seed, too many seeds to corral.

    The King is Naked Week Coming to in front of your home


    "Whatever you do, don't mention The War." Basil Fawlty, while mentally impaired.

    by Jim P on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 02:48:43 PM PDT

  •  Road to Repression: Kettling the First Amendment.. (3+ / 0-)

    using brutality, to attack and intimidate; using archaic ordinances to supersede the Constitution; and voicing to media fears of...of...dirtiness?, or "public safety issues"?, or--something equally nonsensical as an excuse to remove the inconvenient voices of dissent from the streets of the status quo.

    IMHO, there's something so very hypocritical about a nation that supports citizens of other nations in their demonstrations and protests against the tyranny and/or unresponsiveness of their leaders--yet that remains silent when petty tyrants in state and city governments use every tactic they can devise to disperse, intimidate and neutralize their own demonstrators and protesters--despite the Constitution prohibiting the government from abridging the rights of the people to assemble and the rights to Free Speech.

    •  The excess population are vermin (0+ / 0-)

      They live at the sufferance of the 1%.  How can you not see their benevolence in letting those filthy cretins exist?  (Just not on their doorstep)

      /(not so much) snark

      NOW SHOWING
      Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
      Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

      by The Dead Man on Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 04:17:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  just emailed this one to my family (4+ / 0-)

    inluding 15 year old daughter.

    thanks opol... again.

  •  any NC Kossacks want to (4+ / 0-)

    go to DC this weekend for Circle the Whitehouse??

    I have a 12 seat Chevy Van I can drive there & Back

  •  Yup (3+ / 0-)

    Your Pissed Off
    in a good way though

    Keep at it OPOL

  •  Hypocricy? (0+ / 0-)

    Inevitably, our own is revealed with the accusation.

  •  This whole country used to be a Free-Speech Zone (4+ / 0-)

    I am stealing this and I'm going to use it whenever I can.

    Nance

  •  Free Speech is............ (2+ / 0-)

    Badmouthing the FBI on their own doorsteps.

    Slideshow and video

    We have been fighting this anti-free speech agenda for over a year now. The anti-war protesters whose homes were raided have still not been charged with any crime. Their property still has not been returned.

    Some people have short memories

    by lenzy1000 on Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 07:14:09 PM PDT

  •  great as always, OPOL (2+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  Just the trend (2+ / 0-)

    They keep telling us how great America is and how we have to keep giving up rights to be "safe".

    The rich get richer and the poor can't even make it.

    A good video about this scam is here...

    The True Freedom Movement

  •  Our country is rotting from the head (2+ / 0-)
    Fuck these constitution-destroying assholes with their treasonous Patriot Act, domestic spying, corporate personhood, official torture programs, extra-judicial assassinations, Free Speech Zones, SWAT teams, mercenaries, super congresses, state secrets and police brutality. Fuck them and their whole fascism-on-a-stick schtick.

    This can't be repeated enough, so I quoted it.

  •  I Expect Obama to stand up for protestors (2+ / 0-)

    I will NOT BE contributing anymore money to the Democratic party until they make a statement concerning the abuse by the police of the protestors.  I will continue to support my local Progressive Democratic party but I am appalled that President Obama has said that people have the right to peaceable assemble in other countries without being abused but has said NOTHING about the abuse protestors in our own country have suffered.

    We are supposed to have First Amendment rights in this country.

    I expect our representatives to stand up for that.

    My daughter has participated in several of the protests in NYC and she said the police were intimidating.  I expect the police to protect the protestors, not intimidate and hut them.  I have seen several raids live and was appalled at the police reaction to peaceful protestors.

Meteor Blades, Grassroots Mom, Velocity, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, paradox, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, vicki, LeislerNYC, Chi, Lawdog, BOHICA, melo, teacherken, deben, Timaeus, Gooserock, saraswati, msl, emal, Outsourcing Is Treason, Shockwave, jazzizbest, fugitive, hyperstation, eeff, xynz, mzinformed, Sandy on Signal, windwardguy46, RFK Lives, gjohnsit, Matilda, HighSticking, hubcap, TheMomCat, bronte17, 88kathy, TracieLynn, annrose, rhp, mustang dvs, srkp23, Agathena, KMc, chimpy, JuliaAnn, fumie, splashy, high uintas, dksbook, Quege, kharma, scorpiorising, psnyder, hangingchad, sockpuppet, TexDem, Kamakhya, jlynne, Miss Jones, businessdem, pat bunny, roseeriter, Damnit Janet, JimWilson, On The Bus, Sychotic1, wordwraith, BlogDog, kismet, Pohjola, AllisonInSeattle, zerelda, side pocket, rocklawyer, Hillbilly Dem, lonespark, poemworld, vacantlook, solesse413, xxdr zombiexx, bibble, J Orygun, BoogieMama, averageyoungman, humphrey, kbman, bobdevo, marina, Skaje, UncleCharlie, OpherGopher, PBen, Big River Bandido, KnotIookin, Alice Venturi, Ragu the Afrish, grimjc, ChemBob, myeye, Brooke In Seattle, YucatanMan, orson, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, Sun Tzu, jimstaro, jimreyn, Burned, Kayakbiker, SJerseyIndy, lotlizard, blue jersey mom, RichterScale, Sandino, Yamara, LucyandByron, techno, WisePiper, sodalis, Lisa Lockwood, hairylarry, Paddy999, Snud, big spoiled baby, Paper Cup, Jim R, Jim P, berko, SoulCatcher, Mother Mags, Tin hat mafia, Knucklehead, Nance, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Medium Head Boy, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, Mr Bojangles, Clytemnestra, BlueInARedState, Yellow Canary, cookseytalbott, seefleur, victoria2dc, Hear Our Voices, kestrel9000, dougymi, The Wizard, carolita, Son of a Cat, luckydog, slampros, blueoasis, DarkestHour, triv33, MJ via Chicago, jguzman17, The Hindsight Times, Rosaura, SadieSue, real world chick, katrinka, joe shikspack, CTLiberal, Preston S, ER Doc, dirtfarmer, Turbonerd, ilyana, CA Nana, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Dianna, Cassiodorus, Dreaming of Better Days, kurt, zedaker, shaharazade, Statusquomustgo, kurious, OHdog, NonnyO, cpresley, Thinking Fella, pale cold, Evil Betty, FlamingoGrrl, DrSteveB, bluicebank, Haningchadus14, Kaiju, possum, Debs2, Dartagnan, offgrid, jayb, Mary Mike, certainot, DWG, eOz, Unbozo, aliasalias, Democrat, Strabo, bnasley, RosyFinch, artisan, Kentucky Kid, jayden, US Blues, BlueInKansas, jnhobbs, Bridge Master, carpunder, CT Hank, Rumarhazzit, GeorgeXVIII, fallina7, skod, TexasTwister, cloudbustingkid, Don midwest, TomP, rmonroe, Mighty Ike, 123man, MKinTN, rogerdaddy, hkorens, mconvente, Devsd, Justus, wayoutinthestix, zerone, poligirl, Youffraita, Involuntary Exile, elwior, DCBlue, KJG52, VL Baker, jamess, tofumagoo, triplepoint, kyril, glendaw271, petulans, lenzy1000, allie123, Quilldriver, magicsister, Robobagpiper, David Futurama, shortgirl, squarewheel, ZhenRen, ggwoman55, legendmn, Celtic Merlin, wv voice of reason, maggiejean, lancecote, Florene, number nine dream, J M F, zmom, DontTaseMeBro, aufklaerer, greengemini, divineorder, Scott Wooledge, BigAlinWashSt, The Dead Man, iowaworker, dharmasyd, stolen water, Mislead, dark daze, Methinks They Lie, shopkeeper, unspeakable, zaka1, MKSinSA, TheOpinionGuy, JustJennifer, kevinpdx, IreGyre, dalfireplug, sfarkash, strangedemocracy, jfromga, ohmyheck, Tommymac, jpmassar, rebel ga, Words In Action, BigVegan, commonmass, coppercelt, pyegar, TDreamer, LaughingPlanet, Susan Grigsby, politik, David Harris Gershon, The Free Agent, sunny skies, Simple, ATFILLINOIS, Eddie L, gulfgal98, Lady Libertine, ItsSimpleSimon, DiegoUK, Funkygal, Muggsy, Johnny Q, elengul, GiveMeFreedom, slice, Mac in Maine, no way lack of brain, Onomastic, renbear, Colorado is the Shiznit, angstall, allenjo, Plox, moonbat666, poorbuster, m00finsan, GrogInOhio, princesspat, antonrobb, dle2GA, muddy boots, tardis10, enhydra lutris, corvaire, peregrine kate, waiting for lefty, cailloux, happenstance, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, DEMonrat ankle biter, PrometheusUnbound, yawnimawke, anodnhajo, Catskill Julie, oldhippie, greenbastard, Siri, wordfiddler, joanil, S F Hippie, Joieau, Trotskyrepublican, FreeSpeaker, Evolutionary, Steve Masover, drnononono, Horace Boothroyd III, pot, Arahahex, qannabbos, notdarkyet, lunachickie, Noddy, avsp, Diane Gee, George3, wasatch, katiec, databob, maf1029, lastlegslaststand, Quasimodal, Dumas EagerSeton, Lily O Lady, DamselleFly, Carlsson, quince, SphericalXS

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site