read the material below, particularly re the suit against government

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
I get material from this outfit from time to time. Some of it is interesting, some of the time. I believe that this is one of those times.

When next you hear abut how terrible a place this country is, what with The USA Patriot Act for example, and how government tramples the individual, think about the suit brought in federal court, against New York City.

Re the other countries, whose systems and or governments are superior to those of the U.S., we are told, ours aren't perfect by any means, just think about how far a suit against the government would get in any of these other countries, when brought by such people as are party to this action. Not very far I suspect, but then I've been wrong before.

Who knows but what this question is one that you might pose to critics, perhaps just to see what they come up with, in the way of an answer.


Update on Today’s Hearing in Free Speech Lawsuit
Article from New York Newsday below
August 20, 2004

The drama of the free speech battle in New York City riveted the attention of a packed courtroom filled with supporters and media today as the attorneys for the National Council of Arab Americans and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition exposed the shifting rationales given by the City of New York for the denial of permits in Central Park as nothing but a pretext to silence opponents of the Bush administration's domestic and foreign policies.

The case was argued by Mara Verheyden-Hilliard on behalf to the Partnerships for Civil Justice and the National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee.

The National Council of Arab Americans (NCA) filed a permit application on January 7, 2004, for a mass assembly rally of 75,000 people in the Great Lawn of Central Park two days before the August 30 opening of the Republican National Convention. After waiting six months, the City of New York denied the permit. The attorneys established that New York City refused to give specific rationale for the denial of the permit. They asserted that the denial was politically motivated.

In the court case today, the plaintiffs insisted that the city was using the renovation of the grass on the Great Lawn in Central Park as a justification to deny political opponents of the Bush administration permits even though the City and Parks Department have given permits for corporate sponsored events, including music concerts, since the completion of the renovation in 1997.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of the NCA and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition seeks to open access to Central Park for all those intending to stage mass anti-Bush demonstrations during the week of the Republican National Convention and to ensure that the park is open to people expressing political dissent without fear of arrest.

Judge William H. Pauley, III concluded the nearly three-hour hearing and announced that he would issue his ruling Monday morning, August 23.

The outcome of the battle for free speech in New York City during the RNC is of utmost importance for all who want to defend the civil rights and civil liberties that are under assault by the Bush administration.

Throughout the hearing the city gave shifting rationales - from the grass to the size of the event to rain to ticketing. In the last minutes of the hearing, they came up with a completely new argument, asserting that they were denying all groups the ability to engage in political speech in the park out of "fairness." They asserted for the first time that the park could not accommodate an event on both August 28 and August 29.

Recognizing this as a brand new effort to justify their denial of free speech rights by seeking to divide those who are protesting during the RNC, attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard told the court that the NCA and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition would not be pitted against other groups and would not allow the city to use the permitting process to obstruct the important demonstration going forward on August 29. The NCA and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition made it clear to the court that it will not accept a resolution that denies anyone else free speech rights.

Throughout their argument, the NCA and A.N.S.W.E.R. argued to the court the right of all others, including the August 29 demonstration sponsored by United for Peace and Justice, to have access to the Great Lawn in Central Park. By exposing the government's shifting rationales for the denial of both permits, the attorneys effectively revealed that the city's denial of the August 29 permit was in fact content-based discrimination.

The cost of this struggle for free speech, including the legal challenge and organizing efforts, is enormous. Make a financial contribution today. You can make an online donation using the secure server by clicking here. If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribution of $50 or more, mail a check payable to A.N.S.W.E.R./AGJ to: A.N.S.W.E.R., 1247 E St. SE Washington DC 20003. You can also make a tax-deductible credit card donation of $50 or more by calling 202-544-3389.

* * * * *

ARTICLE FROM NEW YORK NEWSDAY:

Protesters await judge's ruling

August 20, 2004
By Anthony M. Destefano
Staff Writer

A group of Arab-Americans and other protesters will find out Monday morning whether a federal judge in Manhattan will force the city to allow them to hold a large demonstration on Central Park's Great Lawn on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

Judge William H. Pauley III said Friday he will have his decision by 11 a.m. Monday on whether City Hall improperly denied a permit for the demonstration in June.

After listening to legal arguments and testimony about the free-speech battle, which pits the National Council of Arab Americans and an anti-war coalition, against Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration, Pauley tried to prod the parties to work out a compromise.

"I get the sense somewhere there may be a middle ground that may be arrived at here," Pauley said after more than two hours of legal arguments and testimony.

He added that the issue is "an impasse that, quite frankly, the court is in a difficult position to decide."

The Arab council and the coalition - Act Now To Stop War & End Racism, or ANSWER - applied in January for an Aug. 28 permit to rally 75,000 people on the Great Lawn, where they were to call for an end to racial and religious profiling and advance equal rights for Arabs and Muslims in the United States. The city denied their request on June 15.

Testifying yesterday, Brian Becker, who is coordinating the rally, said the lawn was chosen because it has come to symbolize free speech rights.

"The Great Lawn is to New York what the National Mall is to Washington, D.C.," he said.

Becker testified that the city never gave a specific reason for denying the permit. He said that in recent weeks the Department of Parks and Recreation has given what where shifting reasons.

Those reasons, Becker's lawyer Mara Verheyden-Hilliard said, generally revolved around fears of damage to the lawn, the renovation of which was completed in 1998.

Later statements by city officials about the grass, fear of increased destruction of the landscape if rain fell and the need to control admission by ticketing were pretexts for an unconstitutional denial of a permit because of the political nature of the event, Verheyden-Hilliard argued.

Special corporation counsel Gail Donoghue stressed in her argument that the city had a real fear that rain during the rally would destroy the lawn.

She also said that while 28 permits for demonstrations during the Republican National Convention were granted, the coalition's rally — as well as one sought by United for Peace and Justice for Aug. 29 — would ruin the grass.

Donoghue explained that horticulturists and other experts believe the lawn's surface can sustain six mass-crowd events a year, four of which have already occurred.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
Act Now to Stop War & End Racism
www.ANSWERcoalition.org
[email protected]
National Office in Washington DC: 202-544-3389
New York City: 212-533-0417
Los Angeles: 323-464-1636
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
For media inquiries, call 212-533-0417.

Click here to join the A.N.S.W.E.R. email list












- - - - - - - - -
To Unsubscribe
If you wish to be permanently removed from the A.N.S.W.E.R. list and to not receive any e-communications at all from the campaign,Click here to unsubscribe.

or (if you have any problems with the unsubscribe link, above)
 
The honest reply would probably be that they were worried about the violence that the members of this group are advocating against republicans. I was just hearing one of their leaders on the radio a few minutes ago saying the equivalent of

"We will not ask our protesters to not engage in unlawful direct actions."

in response to being asked if as a leader,

"will you tell your membership to conduct a peaceful protest?"
 
"“International ANSWER†is a front group for the Workers’ World Party (WWP). (†) The WWP is a sectarian group vocal in its support for war criminal and master planner of genocides Slobodan Milosevic. (‡) Another front group of the WWP’s is “International Action Center.†(§) This is the group that Ramsey Clark, supporter of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, frequently headlines."

- plucked at random off the web


I am just so amazed that these dangerous people are even allowed to set foot in a courthouse.

Is this a great country or what?

John
 
Many of ANSWER's leaders are members of the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leinist organization, and ANSWER has been accused of being a front group for the Party. Almost all antiwar groups in the US were unrelated to ANSWER except for participating in the major ANSWER-sponsored protests. Though its national headquarters are in Washington, D.C., its influence is seen as being strongest in and around San Francisco.
.It has also supported China's actions in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 "

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Workers World Party
 
Amendment I

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.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


I dunno. What does that mean? Does NYC even have a right to require a "permit"? OTOH, if they are not "peaceful" (which they don't intend to be, IMO) why should NYC have to put up with it????

:confused:
 
The outcome of the battle for free speech in New York City during the RNC is of utmost importance for all who want to defend the civil rights and civil liberties that are under assault by the Bush administration.

No information was given to justify planting that little Bush bashing seed. If there is any assault, it is by the city of New York.
 
well, the city of NY won't let you own a gun, so why not infringe on the right to assemble as well. but then again, if they're worried about VIOLENT protest, i can see why they would reject an application to protest.
 
Look at it this way. If it keeps ACLU busy while the Clinton Gun Ban expires, that will be a good thing.;)
 
"right of the people peaceably to assemble"

So let 'em assemble. How about Tuesday night? :)

They just can't do it where they want to. Think of it as a zoning law or noise ordinance. Or a very big do not litter here sign.

Sort of like free speech. You can say what you like, but we the people do not have to provide you with a soap box to stand on.

Suppose they wanted to freely assemble and make loud speeches in a hospital zone? "But it's our RIGHT" they whine.

Losers.

John
 
Sure. If you can't assemble more than 5 people within 500 ft of an inhabited building, that's just a zoning law, right? :rolleyes: Who needs the 1st Amendment anyway?
 
Sure. If you can't assemble more than 5 people within 500 ft of an inhabited building, that's just a zoning law, right? Who needs the 1st Amendment anyway?

5000 of us would like to assemble in your front yard to exercise our 1st Amend rights. We'll be bringing loudspeakers and a rock band. Please provide portable toilets, water and have medics standing by.

Thank you.
 
5000 of us would like to assemble in your front yard to exercise our 1st Amend rights. We'll be bringing loudspeakers and a rock band. Please provide portable toilets, water and have medics standing by.

There may be some merit to that, but is it a fair comparison to public property maintained by the tax base, especially in light of the city's active effort to invite people to visit town and bring money?
 
It's not someone's front yard. It's a very large public park where large gatherings frequently occur.

Permits for group assembly are tolerable insofar as done only for logistic reasons. Can't have two groups occupy the same spot at the same time. Need coordinated time for reasonable maintenance. Someone's gotta pay for the portapottys and trash pickup. Abusing reasonable logistical coordination to deliberately suppress anyone's assembly/speech is wrong.

This group may be a front for the Communist Party. Fine - they get to speak. And we, and the police, get to listen - and to speak in return, reminding them what may come of what they advocate.
 
5000 of us would like to assemble in your front yard to exercise our 1st Amend rights. We'll be bringing loudspeakers and a rock band. Please provide portable toilets, water and have medics standing by.
What band?
 
It's not someone's front yard. It's a very large public park where large gatherings frequently occur.
1) Its a city park where people walk their dogs, play with their kids, toss frisbees, hold hands, sing loves songs and write poetry. The local citizens can't do those things if someone (anyone, whether it is Commies or Birchers or the WCTU or Hari Krishnas) is there raising Cain.

2) IMHO the First Amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Government has zero to nothing to do with what a community decides to do with its park. The Tenth Amendment would appear to have everything to do with it.

3)If they want to hold a political rally they should do what the Repubs are doing, rent an auditorium and reserve a block of hotel rooms.
 
1) Its a city park where people walk their dogs, play with their kids, toss frisbees, hold hands, sing loves songs and write poetry. The local citizens can't do those things if someone (anyone, whether it is Commies or Birchers or the WCTU or Hari Krishnas) is there raising Cain.
I don't walk my dog in parks, don't have kids, don't like frisbees, like to hold hands but rarely do so in parks, my singing is outlawed under the same legislation which prohibits straight pipes on motorcycles, and my poetry is so awful it causes more suicides per year amongst poetry critics than alcohol and broken hearts put together.

So what if me and a few of my friends want to go to the park to protest something we think is wrong? Do I not have an equal right as the lovebirds and the smelly kids/pets to be there? How can I do that if people keep bonking me with frisbees?
 
Meek, you're 100% wrong about this. The city DOES allow large, lawn-trampling events. Often. Four times already this year, in fact. And these guys applied for the permit eight friggin' months ago.

I am utterly disgusted by all the responses that imply that constitutional rights are good -- just not for commies, or wobblies.

Don't you guys freakin' get it? To take away everyone's rights, despots start by taking away those of the unpopular.

Why do you think the gun-grabbers started with evil black rifles and not with bird guns?

I'll leave you with a few thoughts:

When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not a gypsy.
When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I am not a
Catholic.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak.
-On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in Washington

I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire
 
"To take away everyone's rights, despots start by taking away those of the unpopular."

No, I'm unpopular, they are evil (or downright stupid.) You can look it up.

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes..." Everybody sing along. :)


"Who needs the 1st Amendment anyway?"

No one is stopping any individual from walking up and down the street and speechifying. Gosh, they can even do it on their on property or rent some. They just can't have a big Anti-American losers party precisely where they would like to. If they'd tried this during WWII they'd have been run out of town and that might still happen if they insist on promoting and advertising their lies and stupidity.

The 1st Amendment is a two-way street and they're going the wrong way down a busy one.

John
 
They just can't have a big Anti-American losers party precisely where they would like to. - JohnBT

I am wondering if you can match this well with wanting gun rights to be absolute.

I think the question here would be whether such an assembly would clearly spoil someone else's day. That sort of consideration is when exercise of rights comes into question. Controlling the spin of varying points of view is not what it's all about.
 
Last edited:
JohnBT,

If the best argument you can come up with for arbitrarily denying one group's constitutional rights is that you don't like them, I can only assume that you are singing from the Feinstein/Schumer hymnbook.

And that you can't see that is truly frightening.
 
I deny that I'm for denying any groups rights. I've simply stated that no one individual has an absolute right to free speech in every place and/or situation. There are a multitude of exceptions to the free speech amendment if you would stop and think about it, even on public property.

And as often as the Bill of Rights is said to apply to individuals, then doesn't the 1st Amendment apply to individuals and not groups?

And RealGun that was real cute the way you posted the quote I posted with my name attached to it so it would look like I said it. See...

"Who needs the 1st Amendment anyway?" - JohnBT

Are you freaking blind or illiterate? Or simply dishonest? If you will look at my earlier post you will find that I've QUOTED SOMEONE ELSE - THAT'S WHY IT HAS QUOTATION MARKS AROUND IT. Sheesh, now I have to give English lessons too? How about Editing your post to be more truthful and accurate?

John
 
In general I don't think that the city of New York should be able to pick and choose who can use the park to hold demonstrations.

I do think that they could have valid reasons why they refused these particular permits.

If the groups have records of violent protests, and there is evidence that this protest would likely turn violent then they have every right to ban the protest. However, there has to be reasonable evidence, not just unsubstantiated fears.

If the lawn really can't handle additional rallies at this time, then it's reasonable to not issue the permit to protect the public resource. Has there been a rally recently? How have they treated other groups that have gotten permission to use the grounds? Did the groups that used the grounds earlier in the year apply for the permit before or after these groups?

Another issue is that such rallies require a lot of public resources in the form of police, and EMS services being ready and on hand if needed. There is also a huge effort by grounds keepers. The city of New York may simply not have enough resources available to handle this rally that close to the Rebublican convention.

Not allowing them to use public property does not preclude them from assembling. They can always do so on private property.

The city of New York has a responsibility to try and allow equal access to groups wanting to assemble peacefully. That doesn't mean that anyone wanting to use the property for an assembly has to be given permission.
 
And as often as the Bill of Rights is said to apply to individuals, then doesn't the 1st Amendment apply to individuals and not groups?
So a ban against members of the NRA owning guns would be legal under the Second?

Remember, a group is composed of individuals.

There are always exceptions, but political speech in the form of peacable public protests is one thing that the First was specifically designed to protect. It should not be denied just because you and I are disgusted by the groups that want to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top