Man banned from D.C

[mikeakanice]

Second question first: I can't, it's your statement that can't be sussed out. Why does a citizen need to be protected from free speech?

First question: Of course I read. It's only two sentences long (or one sentence with a semi-colon), took me all of three seconds to read the part that says "CONGRESS shall make no LAWS".

There already is a law. It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT. And they're violating it by not allowing him to protest abortions. Which by the way I don't agree with his stance but he still has the right to protest it.

[s_bushido]

That still is peaceful assembly. Are you telling me the kkk can organize in D.C and spew their disgusting hate speech but this man, however cannot?

So long as the KKK have enough sense to not get in everyone else's way.

You think he climbed the tree because he likes foliage? Or did he do it so that he'd be harder to get to?

[mikeakanice]

I know a guy who was ordered by a judge to leave Vegas. Apparently he got himself in a lot of trouble so they gave him the boot lol

Yea, but was that guy doing something illegal or was he protesting and asking the government to change the law about something like this guy was? This guy was protesting in the Capital of the United States of America. The one place where what he was doing should absolutley be respected out of all places.

[WarFalcon1]

There already is a law. It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT. And they're violating it by not allowing him to protest abortions. Which by the way I don't agree with his stance but he still has the right to protest it.

What you you saying? The First Amendment says Congress cannot make laws against free speech etc. The Judge is not part of Congress, and it is apparently within his power to kick people out of the area. I don't think the issue is with his message that got him in trouble. Its with him breaking the law to get it across.

[mikeakanice]

So long as the KKK have enough sense to not get in everyone else's way.

You think he climbed the tree because he likes foliage? Or did he do it so that he'd be harder to get to?

I think he did it to be more obvious. Harder to get to I don't know I guess that's a judgement call. That still doesn't give the government a right to ban him from D.C though.

[Deleted]

That still is peaceful assembly. Are you telling me the kkk can organize in D.C and spew their disgusting hate speech but this man, however cannot?

That is because they are protesting in respect to the law, you may not agree with their points (who does lol) but if they assemble with the proper permits it is legal.
Randomly going up a tree that happens to be near the president and shouting down whatever he did shout is not.
Neither is interrupting a sporting event.

Thats not peaceful assembly.

[mikeakanice]

What you you saying? The First Amendment says Congress cannot make laws against free speech etc. The Judge is not part of Congress, and it is apparently within his power to kick people out of the area. I don't think the issue is with his message that got him in trouble. Its with him breaking the law to get it across.

The judge is part of the judicial branch of the government. And you all are only looking at part of the first amendment. Here is another part.


"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference."

Source:www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:39 PM ----------

That is because they are protesting in respect to the law, you may not agree with their points (who does lol) but if they assemble with the proper permits it is legal.
Randomly going up a tree that happens to be near the president and shouting down whatever he did shout is not.
Neither is interrupting a sporting event.

Thats not peaceful assembly.

You need a permit to march. Being in one spot protesting something that the government allows that he does not agree with does not count as needing a permit.

[WarFalcon1]

The judge is part of the judicial branch of the government. And you all are only looking at part of the first amendment. Here is another part.


"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference."

Source:www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

No. That is an interpretation of it. Its not very long. This is what it ACTUALLY says.

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.

From your own source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

[mikeakanice]

No. That is an interpretation of it. Its not very long. This is what it ACTUALLY says.

That is not an interpration of it. The first amendment in itself is quite lengthy. What you are showing me is a small part and is summarized for people who don't want to actually read the entireity of it.

[s_bushido]

That still doesn't give the government a right to ban him from D.C though.

And free speech doesn't give a person the right to do whatever they like. There are limits, and apparently the judge felt he exceeded those limits (on multiple occasions, from the look of it).

[smokii]

the guy sounds as though he was being a dick, besides which, i'm pro-choice - so screw him

[satanicway]

lol

Judges can only... you know... judge something, based on LAWS, and jurisprudence.
The constitution prevents Congress to make a law that allows for the basic rights to be revoked for someone, this prevents by logic that a Judge can make such because no law permits him to do so.
A judge cannot do what ever he wishes, but only what is bound to law and interpretation. The constitution was there exactly to prevent any law to appear that can give an interpretation that permits the basic rights of freedom to be violated.

[WarFalcon1]

That is not an interpration of it. The first amendment in itself is quite lengthy. What you are showing me is a small part and is summarized for people who don't want to actually read the entireity of it.

Really? Your own source disagrees.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

[Reeve]

That makes no sense.

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 11:19 AM ----------



Again, read the first amendment. I've already posted it. All the First Amendment does is prevent Congress (altho later rulings have extended this down to state governments) from passing Laws that restrict Free Speech. It doesn't apply to business. It doesn't apply to judges putting in restraining orders.

It is the job of judges to interpret law based on the constitution.

[Wells]

There already is a law. It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT. And they're violating it by not allowing him to protest abortions. Which by the way I don't agree with his stance but he still has the right to protest it.

No one is removing his right to protest. The law can however regulate your ability to protest as needed.

[Reeve]

There already is a law. It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT. And they're violating it by not allowing him to protest abortions. Which by the way I don't agree with his stance but he still has the right to protest it.

They'll allow him to protest abortions. They won't allow him to protest abortions by disturbing the peace.

[mikeakanice]

No one is removing his right to protest. The law can however regulate your ability to protest as needed.

Actually there have been supreme court case decisons which have protected that right. Hague v. C.I.O. (1939)

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:46 PM ----------

Really? Your own source disagrees.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

In what way does it disagree.It states that the government cannot punish someone for protesting.
Also thanks for going to the summary page to use that against me and not the page that i linked where it goes into detail. Really you're going to try that as an argument?

[Reeve]

That is not an interpration of it. The first amendment in itself is quite lengthy. What you are showing me is a small part and is summarized for people who don't want to actually read the entireity of it.

The first amendment in itself is not quite lengthy, but the judicial opinions surrounding it that define how it is to be interpreted are EXTREMELY lengthy.

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:48 PM ----------

Actually there have been supreme court case decisons which have protected that right. Hague v. C.I.O. (1939)

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:46 PM ----------




In what way does it disagree.It states that the government cannot punish someone for protesting.

This guy isn't being punished for protesting. He's being punished for disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, or whatever he was actually charged with.

[WarFalcon1]

Actually there have been supreme court case decisons which have protected that right. Hague v. C.I.O. (1939)

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:46 PM ----------




In what way does it disagree.It states that the government cannot punish someone for protesting.

It states congress cannot make a law against free speech/religion. No where does it say a judge cannot ban a guy for repeatedly breaking the law.

[Xarkan]

Violation of first amendment anyone?

http://dcist.com/2013/01/tree-climbi...anned_from.php

prosecutors said that over eight years of protests the 80-year-old Maryland man had physically stopped women from seeking reproductive health services at the clinic.

I will go with.. if his actions were legal the law would need fixing