read the material below, particularly re the suit against government

[RealGun]

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?

Done. My mistake, although it didn't change my point, still somewhat at your expense.

This would be more idiot proof if you would use the QUOTE function when you post.

I understand your frustration, but thought your response was uncivil, unworthy of the High Road.

 

[Art Eatman]

Okay, gang...Cool it, okay?

Art

 

[MeekandMild]

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?

That's a funny mental picture, you standing there on a soapbox, getting bonked with frisbees.

IMVHO the first amendment and the classic right of free speech in the commons should be considered in the same light as a person's metaphorical right to swing their fist, ending at the nose of their brother. Back in the 1700's people didn't have electronically amplified speakers which could throw a metaphorical fist to punch down the quiet conversations of picnickers three hundred yards away. Even so the FF put in the clause related to 'peacable assembly' didn't they? I believe the clause was put there to allow the dispersion of unruly crowds, which is the virtual equal of noisy crowds.

I don't really mind you and your buddies getting together with your placards as long as you are both peaceful and you don't incite my town's kids/dogs/golfers/lovers to riot. Which in my opinion means that you need to limit the size of your crowd to one which won't interfere with a single kid on a bicycle from freely riding through the park and you have no electronic amplification of your rhetoric. The right of the locals to be let alone to go about their business trumps the right of out-of-town troublemakers to make noise.

Or you can rent a closed hall like the republicans did and hollar all you want.

But all this discussion is moot anyway because the City of New York isn't the Federal government and a strict reading of the Consitution demonstrates it applies to the Feds, not the cities.

 

[RealGun]

But all this discussion is moot anyway because the City of New York isn't the Federal government and a strict reading of the Consitution demonstrates it applies to the Feds, not the cities.

Until you get to the 14th Amendment. If you talk about "strict reading", the US Constitution applies to every corner of this country. A State is liable for compliance, but the BOR, article by article, is not incorporated and applied to the States (and cities) until someone sues or defends on constitutional grounds, reaches the Supreme Court, and it rules in favor of the COTUS. We in particular would need to understand that, since the 2A remains a State elective. The 2A remains a city elective, if a State has no RKBA in its own Constitution or it allows local preemption. NY is a good example. You can trace it around the country to states with very large cities and powerful police departments.

Thus, citizen outrage is not inappropriate. If due process is prohibitive, we have a basic problem.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

JohnBT wrote:

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.

MeekandMild wrote:

IMVHO the first amendment and the classic right of free speech in the commons should be considered in the same light as a person's metaphorical right to swing their fist, ending at the nose of their brother. Back in the 1700's people didn't have electronically amplified speakers which could throw a metaphorical fist to punch down the quiet conversations of picnickers three hundred yards away. Even so the FF put in the clause related to 'peacable assembly' didn't they? I believe the clause was put there to allow the dispersion of unruly crowds, which is the virtual equal of noisy crowds.

Yes, but one more time...

The city HAS GRANTED MANY PERMITS for equally large and loud events in the same park this year! That they allow some events and ban others suggests some form of discrimination.

 

[alan]

Matt Payne:

I worked in what was politely described as "contract engineering" for many years. I'm sure that you and I could share some interesting "horror stories" about outfits going belly up and or contracts closing suddenly.

 

[flatrock]

The city HAS GRANTED MANY PERMITS for equally large and loud events in the same park this year! That they allow some events and ban others suggests some form of discrimination.

They granted four. I don't think that four in over 8 months constitutes "many".

The question is if they were consistent and non-discriminatory in how they issued the permits.

 

[charby]

not picking a fight but.....

IMVHO the first amendment and the classic right of free speech in the commons should be considered in the same light as a person's metaphorical right to swing their fist, ending at the nose of their brother. Back in the 1700's people didn't have electronically amplified speakers which could throw a metaphorical fist to punch down the quiet conversations of picnickers three hundred yards away. Even so the FF put in the clause related to 'peacable assembly' didn't they? I believe the clause was put there to allow the dispersion of unruly crowds, which is the virtual equal of noisy crowds.

Very similar to the retoric that the gun grabbers use.

Let them protest, we need to support the 1st as much as the 2nd and the rest of amendments.

Charby

 

[MeekandMild]

Let them protest, we need to support the 1st as much as the 2nd and the rest of amendments.

Sure, no skin off of my nose. I'm not a New Yorker. But in terms of it sounding like a gun grabber's argument, yes I will admit I'm guilty of desiring to grab a few loudspeakers from a few street corner preachers, a few endless tape loops from ice cream trucks and a few boom boxes to assist their owners in placing them where the sun doesn't shine.

Let them rent a soundproof hall, invite the media and protest all they want.