| Subject: | Re: Busted Bicycle Riders |
| Date: | 08/31/2004 04:20 AM |
| From: | Edward Lanton |
|
--0-1977777816-1094012530=:74171 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Rude Dog. It is your ignorance of your own constitution that's stunning. One of the principal purposes of the first amendment is precisely to protect the right to "PROTEST". You may recall that one of the major complaints of the colonists was the lack of ability to protest. (You have heard of the Boston Tea Party haven't you?) Even an arch conservative such as Sandra Day O'Connor would disagree with you, stating, as she does for the majority in Boos vs. Barry 485 U.S. 312 (1988) overturning a law banning protests within 500 feet of a foreign embassy: ". . . the First Amendment reflects a "profound national commitment" to the principle that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964), and have consistently commented on the central importance of protecting speech on public issues. See, e. g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 913 (1982); Carey v. Brown, supra, at 467. This has led us to scrutinize carefully any restrictions on public issue picketing. See, e. g., United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171 (1983); Carey v. Brown, supra; Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972). ". . . such speech on public streets and sidewalks, [are] traditional public fora that "time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939) (Roberts, J.). HN2In such places, which occupy a "special position in terms of First Amendment protection," United States v. Grace, 461 U. S., at 180, the government's ability to restrict expressive activity "is very limited." Id., at 177. Of course, there have been times when content neutral restrictions have been found to have been found to be justified, but your statement that the first amendment does not protect "PROTEST" is downright stupid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, in case anyone intends to respond with the BS line of "it's our right to protest;" please don't be so ignorant. Our First Amendment right is to peaceably assemble, not PROTEST, or infringe upon other people's rights. Rude Dog To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com.To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.orgTo unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. --0-1977777816-1094012530=:74171 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Rude Dog. It is your ignorance of your own constitution that's stunning. One of the principal purposes of the first amendment is precisely to protect the right to "PROTEST". You may recall that one of the major complaints of the colonists was the lack of ability to protest. (You have heard of the Boston Tea Party haven't you?)</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even an arch conservative such as Sandra Day O'Connor would disagree with you, stating, as she does for the majority in Boos vs. Barry 485 U.S. 312 (1988) overturning a law banning protests within 500 feet of a foreign embassy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>". . . the First Amendment reflects a "profound national commitment" to the principle that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=40&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b376%20U.S.%20254%2cat%20270%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=fb213e70391a3a958f2be871d7f745e8" target=_parent><EM>New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964),</EM></A><EM> and have consistently commented on the central importance of protecting speech on public issues. See, e. g., </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=41&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b461%20U.S.%20138%2cat%20145%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=9dddd341d8265d49b5efd2208d8d3c19" target=_parent><EM>Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983);</EM></A><EM> </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=42&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b458%20U.S.%20886%2cat%20913%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=cf45922cce3704f64cec36dac99fb143" target=_parent><EM>NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 913 (1982);</EM></A><EM> </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b447%20U.S.%20455%2cat%20467%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=27ac07244e5c480b9d9863d1f122a736" target=_parent><EM>Carey v. Brown, supra, at 467.</EM></A><EM> This has led us to scrutinize carefully any restrictions on public issue picketing. See, e. g., </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=44&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b461%20U.S.%20171%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=7e0319f2474493434fcac8a968870df6" target=_parent><EM>United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171 (1983);</EM></A><EM> </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=45&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b447%20U.S.%20455%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=771a564b123449eab8f37aec3a7f521c" target=_parent><EM>Carey v. Brown, supra;</EM></A><EM> </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=46&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b408%20U.S.%2092%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=f307c7f1448c6e525484a5111efb5e2c" target=_parent><EM>Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972).</EM></A><BR class=br><BR class=br><EM>". . . such speech on public streets and sidewalks, [are] traditional public fora that "time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=47&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b307%20U.S.%20496%2cat%20515%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=b5b89b54f86691668f3cc10addcf5d2d" target=_parent><EM>Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939)</EM></A><EM> (Roberts, J.). </EM><A name=clsccl2></A><A style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=596a275f617648e2a4625047dae581ff&docnum=6&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=14f42d84f25a4df9e5d433f7b8fdf8ec&focBudTerms=%28%28right%20or%20freedom%29%20w/5%29%20assembly%20AND%20protest&f#clscc2" target=_self><FONT face=verdana color=#336666><B><SUP><EM>HN2</EM></SUP></B></FONT></A><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=596a275f617648e2a4625047dae581ff&;docnum=6&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=14f42d84f25a4df9e5d433f7b8fdf8ec&focBudTerms=%28%28right%20or%20freedom%29%20w/5%29%20assembly%20AND%20protest&f#clscc2" target=_self><EM><IMG height=12 alt="Go to the description of this Headnote." src="http://www.lexis.com/ri/core_up.gif" width=11 border=0></EM></A><EM>In such places, which occupy a "special position in terms of First Amendment protection," </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=48&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b461%20U.S.%20171%2cat%20180%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=b38c4b53abe1e29926204d4ec9c38e24" target=_parent><EM>United States v. Grace, 461 U. S., at 180,</EM></A><EM> the government's ability to restrict expressive activity "is very limited." </EM><A href="http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=73a285963279590a1228af087b4e15b0&;_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b485%20U.S.%20312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=49&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b461%20U.S.%20171%2cat%20177%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=6&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkAb&_md5=733e782862be48e435d351406cbec7ae" target=_parent><EM>Id., at 177.</EM></A><EM> </EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course, there have been times when content neutral restrictions have been found to have been found to be justified, but your statement that the first amendment does not protect "PROTEST" is downright stupid. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---------------------------------------------------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BTW, in case anyone intends to respond with the BS line of "it's our right to protest;" please don't be so ignorant. Our First Amendment right is to peaceably assemble, not PROTEST, or infringe upon other people's rights.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Rude Dog</FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><PRE>To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com. To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=26640/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush">Enter now</a>. --0-1977777816-1094012530=:74171-- |
