Man banned from D.C

[mikeakanice]

Violation of first amendment anyone?

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

[Kalcheus]

1st Amendment doesn't apply to district judges

[oblivionx]

I didn't think a judge has the authority to ban someone from a place heh.

[Khalahn]

First amendment doesn't say you can go disrupting everybody else's activities or trespass on private property. If he'd been, you know, acting SANE, he wouldn't be banned from DC.

[mikeakanice]

1st Amendment doesn't apply to district judges

Pretty sure the first amendment applies to anyone associated with the government.

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:10 PM ----------

First amendment doesn't say you can go disrupting everybody else's activities or trespass on private property. If he'd been, you know, acting SANE, he wouldn't be banned from DC.

Actually protesting a government event is protected. And D.C is not private property.

[oblivionx]

1st Amendment doesn't apply to district judges

1st amendment is a right of the citizen. It doesn't actually matter who violates them to be violated.

[Khalahn]

Pretty sure the first amendment applies to anyone associated with the government.

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:10 PM ----------



Actually protesting a government event is protected. And D.C is not private property.

The places he decided to climb up to and refuse to leave, however, were private property and/or restricted areas.

[Deleted]

I Approve.

[Kalcheus]

Pretty sure the first amendment applies to anyone associated with the government.

I suggest next time actually reading the First Amendment:

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.

[Reeve]

I didn't think a judge has the authority to ban someone from a place heh.

Judges can put restraining orders on people. I'v never heard of one putting a restraining order on a person to not be allowed in a whole city before though.

[mikeakanice]

I suggest next time actually reading the First Amendment:

I have. It protects a citizen against the government from free speech. Which includes peaceful protest. Since he was non-violent, he was peaceful. Fyi i'm majoring in law. I have read it.

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:17 PM ----------

The places he decided to climb up to and refuse to leave, however, were private property and/or restricted areas.

He was once again protesting a public, government event. The area he was protesting was not private property. He had the right to do it. Even though I don't agree with what he was protesting he had a right to do it.

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:18 PM ----------

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Which is what he was doing.

[Kalcheus]

I have. It protects a citizen against the government from free speech.

That makes no sense.

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

1st amendment is a right of the citizen. It doesn't actually matter who violates them to be violated.

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.

[mikeakanice]

That makes no sense.

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



Again, read the first amendment. I've already posted it.

Lmao it doesn't make sense? It's right in your quote. Exactly what he was doing, which is protected directly in your quote of the first amendment. How does it not make sense. The government is saying that he can't protest at the presidents inaugration. There is nothing private about that. It is a public event. Which has to do with the government. Are you trolling me?

[Kalcheus]

Lmao it doesn't make sense? It's right in your quote. Exactly what he was doing, which is protected directly in your quote of the first amendment. How does it not make sense. Are you trolling me?

"It protects a citizen against the government from free speech."

It sounds like you're saying the 1st Amendment protects the citizen from having free speech sent against them by government.

[mikeakanice]

Lmao it doesn't make sense? It's right in your quote. Exactly what he was doing, which is protected directly in your quote of the first amendment. How does it not make sense. The government is saying that he can't protest at the presidents inaugration. There is nothing private about that. It is a public event. Which has to do with the government. Are you trolling me?

And by taking away his ability to protest is violating his free speech. You keep telling me to read the first amendent. And I keep going back and saying the quote you are using that involves right to assembly and protest is right in your quote. Have you actually ever read it?

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:25 PM ----------

"It protects a citizen against the government from free speech."

It sounds like you're saying the 1st Amendment protects the citizen from having free speech sent against them by government.

I'm honestly not reading what you wrote there "having free speech sent against them by the government correctly". Can you rewrite that?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Judges can put restrictions on your movements, but only during an investigation, IIRC.

[s_bushido]

Guess he thought yelling in a tree and disrupting football games counted as peaceable assembly. Guess he thought wrong.

[Kalcheus]

And by taking away his ability to protest is violating his free speech. You keep telling me to read the first amendent. And I keep going back and saying the quote you are using that involves right to assembly and protest is right in your quote. Have you actually ever read it?

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 04:25 PM ----------



I'm honestly not reading what you wrote there "having free speech sent against them by the government correctly". Can you rewrite that?

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".

[mikeakanice]

Guess he thought yelling in a tree and disrupting football games counted as peaceable assembly. Guess he thought wrong.

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?

[Reg]

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