>>
>> http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020905brian5.asp
GAB> I thought this nekkid URL was going to be about the
GAB> infringement of 1st amendment rights for broadcasters
GAB> and proposed campaign finanice restrictions preventing them
GAB> from making money on advertisements that are deemed
GAB> thinly veiled campaign contributions by some arbitrary
GAB> government board.  As it was posted to "discussion" I
GAB> thought there'd be some.
GAB> Instead it's a Post-Gazette column by Brian O'Neill
GAB> lamenting the fact that some people know how to
GAB> fill out a permit so that they can take advantage
GAB> of their right to peaceable assembly.  Obviously
GAB> he's poking fun at the idea that specific groups
GAB> get specific "zones" and that it's not up to the
GAB> police to decide what messages and signs get put into
GAB> what zones to most expediently keep order.
Oh thats right Greg.  Because was explicitly clear that the pro-Bush
folks went out and did the permit dance.   So where in the article is
this again?
Lets get something straight here.   This -is- a First Amendment issue.
Public streets, provided one isn't blocking traffic, generally tend to
be sorta ok, at least from my last interpretation of Con Law a few
years ago (I'll feign ignorance wrt the fact that laws may have
changed, and the specific facts in this case are weak).    IF this guy
_was_ merely holding a sign (which it seems was the case for all the
pro-bush folks) he did nothing wrong.  He certainly didn't do enough
of a wrong to warrant a disorderly conduct charge.
I'll play with your perspective though.   Lets assume a few things.
If I walk into the city office and tell them I want to peacably
assemble against Bush, do you think they'll give me a permit?
Probably not.   So I lie.   Then the cop does what happened in this
scenario.  HE walks up, checks my permit and finds out that I
falsified my statement to get this said document.   He arrests me.
End of story.
GAB> The problem is that politics have gotten so muddied
GAB> nowadays, that shouting down and unpeaceably disrupting
GAB> political rallies that you don't agree with has become
GAB> common practice.  The courts have constantly ruled
GAB> that there are some restrictions on the first amendment.
GAB> They teach you that your very first year of law school.
I'll agree with Owen on this one.  Muddied my ass.  How hard is it to
chose between a Republocrat or a Demipublican?   Not very.  Shouting
down has grown to become the answer because the government, over a
span of years, and with the help of the Courts -has- limited the
rights we have as citizens under the First Amendment.    If you
question the policy about terrorism, or drugs, or Iraq, or Bush in
general, you're aiding terrorism.   If you challenge the beliefs of
the folks attending the various shadowy G8 conferences, you're an
anarchist, and you're herded off to a 'designated protest spot' miles
away from anything.   Part of the point of speech is to be -heard-.
I can scream on my soapbox in the forest somewhere, and while thats
speech, its not effective speech.  People are screaming and shouting
over the political figures because they cannot be  heard in any other
way.
GAB> I think that given the information as laid out by the story,
GAB> Mr. O'Neill has confused free speech with action.  Free
GAB> speech or even protected speech as practiced by almost
GAB> every American seems to involve the ability to communicate
GAB> an idea to an unknown audience.  Action involves directing
GAB> a specific comment to a specific well-defined individual or audience
GAB> that has immediate, harmful, and sometimes physical
GAB> effects that is easily forseeable by any reasonable person.
Getting back to my original point.  How do you communicate  an idea to
an unknown audience, if you're miles from where the audience is?   How
do you bypass the rules for being -miles- away from the audience
without violating the rules of the regime?  I don't think Mr. Nell was
throwing pies at Bush.  A sign, the last time I checked, didn't cause
physical injury, or even emotional harm.  If I remember Cohen v.
California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), its not the individual speaking that
has the requirement to desist, but the individual listening who has
the option to leave.
Just my .02, while its still considered legal.
--
Best regards,
bitbitch                            mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net