First Amendment Areas.

[Rollo]

Y0ou forgot the part about how that "federal land" is owned by his family since the 1800s. The government is taking it because of some stupid turtle that is endangered so he cant use it anymore

No article I have read has said that his family owned the land ever. I could be wrong, but everything I have read has said it was always public land owned explicitly by the state of Nevada, up until it was labeled as federally protected land due to the endangered tortoise.

[Felya]

I never said they shouldnt be allowed to protest when it was going on, but when they stayed too long leaving their trash everywhere and shitting in parks because they didnt want to walk to a bathroom, I thought at that point they should be removed since they werent respecting the places they were in. Not because of their message however. No Matter stupid their message was, they had a right to say it until they started being destructive. Also I would call rich people should be stripped of their wealth and it should be given to us isnt a very good or reasonable message

The whole point of this is the dudes cows shitting on public property. Unlike humans who were protesting all over the country that get branded destructive because a few. In this case, cows literally branded with this guy's ranch logo, where literally shitting and grazing on public property. Your issue with occupy, is that it became what this guy is protesting for his cows to be. Freedom of speech or protest does not hinge on a time limit or demonizing the many in the actions of the few...

[belfpala]

The fact that it's the first amendment of many, is what actually implies it. I think Belf was on the right track, but chose the wrong wording.

My track was correct, but so is yours.

Basically it comes down to this: the compelling government interest (my track) is that Federal workers need safety and security while doing their assigned job on Federal land (your track). The fact that they allowed protest zones at all on that land is pretty amazing.

[Felya]

My track was correct, but so is yours.

Basically it comes down to this: the compelling government interest (my track) is that Federal workers need safety and security while doing their assigned job on Federal land (your track). The fact that they allowed protest zones at all on that land is pretty amazing.

Now I think I chose my wording badly.

Our track is the same, I was just expending on what expresses government's interest.

[Deleted]

free-speech-zones are old news

[belfpala]

Our track is the same, I was just expending on what expresses government's interest.

I think my ultimate point was going to be that you might challenge whether the government has a compelling interest sufficient to limit freedom of assembly. That means going after the why of what they're doing on that land, not the fact that a freedom was restricted.

I think someone pages back, maybe even you, Felya, or maybe it was Nixx, posted a thing that protests can be limited in time, place, and manner. That passes SCOTUS review in the right situations. This is one of those situations

[Wildtree]

sure if you want to believe that, you´d be wrong too but i kind of think you don´t care much for being wrong

I am laughing so hard right now...

I love, love, love Americans that are so close minded, so misinformed that they seriously claim EU countries have no free speech.
Coming from people of a country where LIVE Shows on TV are delayed by at least 5 minutes to be able to blank/bleep out any words deemed not to be broadcasted to the public.
They have apparently zero problem with the censorship of rather harmless profanity like Asshole.... Yet they have a huge problem when someone is really damaging with their words.

Yet this is exactly the reason why I cannot take many Americans serious when they talk about rights and freedom.. I'd say they have no concept and clue what those highly valuable goods actually mean.
Yes, it's true..... In most European countries Freedom of Speech does have limitations. Yet all of them have a meaning. A very logic meaning. And that is quite simple actually:
Your freedom ends at the very doorstep of the next persons freedom.
You have the right to say whatever you please to say, but if what you've said crosses the line into another ones freedom, you are subject to violation of that freedom, and have to deal with the consequences laid out in the laws.
And yet still, those limitations aren't as simple as day and night. Since the law considers the circumstance.
If Joe Schmoe out in the streets says "Merkel is a fucking cunt that smells like fish shop", he can be subject to charges on Insult.
If a comedian says it within a standup routine, and it's context is different, there's not the least problem with it.

I find it very amusing.... Did I already mention, that I even love it, when uneducated people make such hilarious claims...
When in reality however, US celebs that are going on German TV shows praise the country's real freedoms of speech....
Right off the bat I can think of guys like Kid Rock and Eminem, who enjoy it every time....

Sitting in a chair on a TV show with a bottle of beer in your hand, not having to hide it, and down the road singing a song about fucking, without the need to alter the lyrics. Those are freedoms, small details, yet still, I consider them personal choice. I decide for myself if I want to expose myself to them or not. There's no government interfering with educational mechanisms, treating every adult like a 5 yrs old child.
We also do not have problems with naked people on public TV at prime time. Be it partially nude or completely nude... Those things do not harm the society, not even the morals. Racism, Extremism on the other hand are damaging, and that's why they are illegal.

All in all.... For as long as the freedoms we enjoy in Europe don't exist in the US, for as long an American cannot claim how we have less freedom, or even none whatsoever.. It's idiotic.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: Looking further into public lands it seems pretty clear that this guy has no legitimate claim to these lands.

I wonder something with this case...
Aren't there any laws that deal with common grandfathered customs?
I mean, if I try to approach this neutrally, and why wouldn't I..
We have the case of where an individual (a family for that matter) uses a part of land for over 100 years. If their doing was wrong, why hasn't anyone ever interfered in the beginning? Or at least a lot earlier... The actual case now basically started in 1993ish. That still keeps it over the 100 yrs mark.

Aren't there laws that deal with such things, that after a set amount of time, without anyone contesting or interfering a right to the land is established?

[belfpala]

Aren't there laws that deal with such things, that after a set amount of time, without anyone contesting or interfering a right to the land is established?

Yes, adverse possession (link).

I'm pretty sure you can't adversely posses government land, though.

[Oftenwrongsoong]

To understand why that First Amendment Zone was created, you first have to understand the First Amendment.

Read the thread, most people do not really know what it actually applies to.

[Orlong]

My track was correct, but so is yours.

Basically it comes down to this: the compelling government interest (my track) is that Federal workers need safety and security while doing their assigned job on Federal land (your track). The fact that they allowed protest zones at all on that land is pretty amazing.

The whole point is that the federal agents are doing a job that doesnt need to be done. Its the whole reason they were blocked. If they didnt show up everything wouldve kept going as normal. But some stupid turtle made them think they should confiscate the land and label it as federal land. Perhaps they shouldve kept their nose out of it, or moved the damn turtle

- - - Updated - - -

I think my ultimate point was going to be that you might challenge whether the government has a compelling interest sufficient to limit freedom of assembly. That means going after the why of what they're doing on that land, not the fact that a freedom was restricted.

I think someone pages back, maybe even you, Felya, or maybe it was Nixx, posted a thing that protests can be limited in time, place, and manner. That passes SCOTUS review in the right situations. This is one of those situations

The SCOTUS hasnt said whether this was one of those times or not. The government shouldnt just be able to declare anytime they want if its one of those times or not. I think they were wrong to declare that any time would be one of those times to begin with

[Deleted]

The whole point is that the federal agents are doing a job that doesnt need to be done. Its the whole reason they were blocked. If they didnt show up everything wouldve kept going as normal. But some stupid turtle made them think they should confiscate the land and label it as federal land. Perhaps they shouldve kept their nose out of it, or moved the damn turtle

Displaying clear lack of knowledge about property laws 101.

[Deleted]

The second amendment says people have the right to keep and bear arms. I seem to have missed the part where it said you can shoot at federal agents doing their legally appointed duties.

- - - Updated - - -



Requiring permits and making picket lines to protest has been a thing for a LONG TIME, and slippery slope has never been the argument of a smart man.

The Feds have no right to disrupt peaceful protests. That's the First Amendment.

[Deleted]

The Feds have no right to disrupt peaceful protests. That's the First Amendment.

They do maintain the right to kick them off federal land though.

[Orlong]

You need to pay the taxes to do that in Nevada. He hasn't even paid the fees.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-0...l#NRS011Sec030

The law is written in a weird way, which makes it hard to read if you don't speak lawyer, but it looks like a court has to void state ownership of land.

He pays his taxes. He hasnt paid "access fees" they demand of him

[Deleted]

Holy fuck, batman.

The first amendment has two clauses. Let's not discuss the first part.

The second clause goes, "Congress shall make no law...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"

Every one of those rights has limitations.

Freedom of speech is limited when it's an immediate incitement to violence, in defamation issues, in false advertising, and probably other areas.

Freedom of the press is limited in libel, otherwise.

Freedom to assemble has been determined to be limited in the time, place, and manner of an assembly; that may be restricted, if there is a compelling government interest.

The last one means nothing, really.

Look up the definition of abridging.

[Wells]

He pays his taxes. He hasnt paid "access fees" they demand of him

God damn moochers amirite?

[Deleted]

I can't seem to find any information on exactly how his family came to no longer own that land. Generally speaking though, it's completely the same thing. I don't have a right to seize all of the property in SE Michigan that has belonged to my family at one time or another either.





herpderp






What threats? The guy kicked at a police dog and got tasered. The "Stand back or you'll get bit," isn't a threat; it's a warning. They were getting within range of the police dog on the leash. This isn't about protesting though. In case you forgot, the protests are themselves about a guy REFUSING TO PAY WHAT HE OWES THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE HE FEEL LIKE IT.

According to the statement of the feds. Once again, lmao.

This is once again about protests. If any protest is bullied in anyway shape or form the whole thing becomes about protests. Stop trying to justify bullying and stop trying to attack self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to uphold it as an unintelligent absolute, then I should have the right to assemble in your house and you should have no right to be rid of us.

You need to come up with better arguments. The people have the right to protest on public land.

[Kulanae]

The Feds have no right to disrupt peaceful protests. That's the First Amendment.

Of course they do. You have the right under the Constitution to peacefully assemble and petition the government to hear your grievances. That does NOT grant any protest the right to disrupt the rest of us in any way.

[Deleted]

So, as far as I understand the history of "Bundy's" land, Nevada became a state in 1864 and part of their constitution gave the federal government ownership of all land within state borders that was not occupied or owned by a private entity at the time. The Bundy family themselves claim that an ancestor purchased "the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there." It's unclear if they purchased the land, or simply bought the rights to use the land before the BLM existed and administered such rights. If that land belonged to the federal government, I'm guessing it's the latter, not to mention it would be odd to say you bought the rights to the land and not just that you bought the land, if you had bought the land. If it is the case that they bought access rights and not the land itself, then truly, this man has no reasonable claim to this land or its use for his own private enterprise, ancestry or not, and is behaving in a purely criminal fashion that nobody should wish to support anymore than they might support a gang or any other organized crime.

Edit: Looking further into public lands it seems pretty clear that this guy has no legitimate claim to these lands.

Read the thread title. This is about First Amendment Zones. Go to the other thread.

[Deleted]

The one lady got pushed down and the video doesn't give a clear indication of what happened because of distance, obstruction, and lack of focus on it, but the guy clearly kicked at the dog before getting tased. They didn't tase anyone else and I don't see them releasing the dogs on anyone. In fact, they even backed up to keep the dogs out of range of the people who were disobeying direct orders to stay back and encroaching upon them. Am I denying any wrongdoing or mistakes on the part of the government? No, it does look like she may have been incorrectly knocked over, but this is absolutely being blown out of proportion, as usual, by people with delusional fantasies of an oppressive authoritarian state/Evil Empire that is apparently too stupid to realize they're the Evil Empire in determining how to handle people. For a bunch of extremists to show up armed to the teeth to menace government employees who had restricted themselves to nonlethal methods and used a single nonlethal weapon against a single person who tried to kick a police dog is an absolute overreaction.

They have no right to tell the people that they have to protest in a small enclosed area because it's public land. The people can protest there if they want, the Government has no authority to tell them otherwise. Pushing over the lady was just another abuse of their power. Honestly, you need to stfu about the whole, "They weren't using lethal force it's all okay!" bullshit. It's not considered okay or normal for the Government to use lethal force against any peaceful protester in any way. Not only that but it seems like you're implying that they also weren't holding lethal weapons. These guys were aiming fucking sniper rifles at people simply taking pictures of the bullshit they were doing.

But the best thing about all of this is the fact that you still do not say why the Government decided to pull out as soon as the militia came. All of the miltias agreed hat they would only fire at the feds if they were fired upon/attacked. The Feds would be okay as long as they didn't start shooting/attacking protesters, but obviously they were never above that. That meant they had to go because they were out numbered and outgunned.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they do. You have the right under the Constitution to peacefully assemble and petition the government to hear your grievances. That does NOT grant any protest the right to disrupt the rest of us in any way.

How did the protesters disrupt your rights? Using Public land to protest is their right even if it's inconvenient for the Government or other people. Caging protesters up because they were exercising their rights and you were inconvenience is completely unconstitutional.