Print

[LetsGoWings]

Government entities may make reasonable content-neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner of a speech or assemblage, even in a traditional public forum. This action directly affects the rights of assembly, since a government entity may restrict the time and place where an assembly may take place, as well as the manner in which the assembly occurs. The restrictions must be reasonable and narrowly tailored to meet a significant government purpose. The government entity must also leave open ample channels for interested parties that wish to communicate.

http://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/reasonable-time-place-and-manner-restrictions/

It has been upheld in several Supreme Court cases.

[ussoccer26]

Government entities may make reasonable content-neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner of a speech or assemblage, even in a traditional public forum. This action directly affects the rights of assembly, since a government entity may restrict the time and place where an assembly may take place, as well as the manner in which the assembly occurs. The restrictions must be reasonable and narrowly tailored to meet a significant government purpose.The government entity must also leave open ample channels for interested parties that wish to communicate.

Here is what I don't understand, they only removed a few people. If the whole assembly was not within the restrictions of the law, why weren't they all removed? To me the whole thing is BS. Even though the supreme court upheld this case the government should not be able to tailor your free speech to match their agendas. At that point you can't call it free or speech.

[LetsGoWings]

Government entities may make reasonable content-neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner of a speech or assemblage, even in a traditional public forum. This action directly affects the rights of assembly, since a government entity may restrict the time and place where an assembly may take place, as well as the manner in which the assembly occurs. The restrictions must be reasonable and narrowly tailored to meet a significant government purpose.The government entity must also leave open ample channels for interested parties that wish to communicate.

Here is what I don't understand, they only removed a few people. If the whole assembly was not within the restrictions of the law, why weren't they all removed? To me the whole thing is BS. Even though the supreme court upheld this case the government should not be able to tailor your free speech to match their agendas. At that point you can't call it free or speech.

Can you yell bomb on an airplane?
Can you blatantly defame someones character and cause them to lose a job?
Can you threaten the President?

There are limits to free speech. I can't go out on a sidewalk and just start shouting and wake people up. They aren't tailoring free speech to match their agendas, they are putting reasonable restrictions on the right to assembly.

Here is another interesting read: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions

[ducksoup]

Walker's Wisconsin: Kenosha County Sheriff Says Signs More Than 4" Wide Not Allowed On Public Land.
http://current.com/community/93610878_walkers-wisconsin-kenosha-county-sheriff-says-signs-more-than-4-wide-not-allowed-on-public-land.htm?xid=RSSfeed

Apparently tough, free speech isn’t restricted for everyone....
http://gulagbound.com/18676/tea-party-express-wisconsin-%e2%80%9ckenosha-milwaukee%e2%80%9d-edition/

I remember the near riotous insanity of the Tea radicals going to town hall meetings and gloating how “fun” it was to disrupt the meeting so the rep could not talk.  I remember parades of tea radicals toting assault rifles around as protest signs and loudly proclaiming that if they didn’t get what they wanted that they would resort to a “second amendment response”.

Both of those, no pepper spray, no beatings, no arrests.  Kids literally peacefully sitting get the full treatment though.

I find it super amusing that the right is making out as if the teas are good because they got no negative government response and that OWS is bad, wrong, evil, because the government wants them to shut up.  Hmmmm.  Do you shut up those that scream what you want to hear, or the ones that can upset the gravy train?

[ducksoup]

Can you yell bomb on an airplane?
Can you blatantly defame someones character and cause them to lose a job?
Can you threaten the President?

There are limits to free speech. I can't go out on a sidewalk and just start shouting and wake people up. They aren't tailoring free speech to match their agendas, they are putting reasonable restrictions on the right to assembly.

Here is another interesting read: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions

Yes there are limits.  You win. Now argue why they are unfairly enforced for some and ignored for another.  Then you can play the morality high king, until then not.

[ussoccer26]

Can you yell bomb on an airplane?

Yes

Can you blatantly defame someones character and cause them to lose a job?

Yes. A gun company just did it to a recent Medal of Honor recipient because he criticized how they supply the taliban with weapons.

Can you threaten the President?

I could but I would not out of better judgement.

There are limits to free speech. I can't go out on a sidewalk and just start shouting and wake people up. They aren't tailoring free speech to match their agendas, they are putting reasonable restrictions on the right to assembly.

Not reasonable in this case. Maybe if they were shouting in a residential area at 1:00 a.m. in the morning I can how they would be restricted. And why weren't they all taken away?

Your the one that believes everything that is legal should be obeyed right? How do you feel about the NDAA sect 1031? It's legal, should the military obey the order to arrest American citizens and put them in indefinite detention when the day comes?


Here is another interesting read: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions

[ussoccer26]

 Do you shut up those that scream what you want to hear, or the ones that can upset the gravy train?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-Martin Niemoller

[LetsGoWings]

Free speech is free speech though, why should there be a restriction on a residential place, but not other places? If you do the things I listed, then most of the time there will be civil action and/or legal action taken against the person.

There should be reasonable time and place restrictions on everyone, not one selective group.

I have not read up on NDAA enough to make a comment on it, but I am assuming there will be a court case about it.

[LetsGoWings]

Yes there are limits.  You win. Now argue why they are unfairly enforced for some and ignored for another.  Then you can play the morality high king, until then not.

They should be enforced fairly across all groups of people regardless of what they are protesting.

[LetsGoWings]

Walker's Wisconsin: Kenosha County Sheriff Says Signs More Than 4" Wide Not Allowed On Public Land.
http://current.com/community/93610878_walkers-wisconsin-kenosha-county-sheriff-says-signs-more-than-4-wide-not-allowed-on-public-land.htm?xid=RSSfeed

Apparently tough, free speech isn’t restricted for everyone....
http://gulagbound.com/18676/tea-party-express-wisconsin-%e2%80%9ckenosha-milwaukee%e2%80%9d-edition/

I remember the near riotous insanity of the Tea radicals going to town hall meetings and gloating how “fun” it was to disrupt the meeting so the rep could not talk.  I remember parades of tea radicals toting assault rifles around as protest signs and loudly proclaiming that if they didn’t get what they wanted that they would resort to a “second amendment response”.

Both of those, no pepper spray, no beatings, no arrests.  Kids literally peacefully sitting get the full treatment though.

I find it super amusing that the right is making out as if the teas are good because they got no negative government response and that OWS is bad, wrong, evil, because the government wants them to shut up.  Hmmmm.  Do you shut up those that scream what you want to hear, or the ones that can upset the gravy train?

Did you not watch the actual 15 minute video of the pepper spray incident in California? They were disobeying orders, circled the cops in, and were warned multiple times to move to allow the people who were arrested to be escorted out. Perhaps the Teas obeyed the laws and restrictions, and there was no need to use force? I don't know, I didn't follow the Tea Party too much because they are pretty crazy.

If they obeyed the laws and restrictions in place then let them protest. I would feel that way about any group. I don't agree at all with Westboro, but they have their right to do what they do, and as long as they obey the laws and restrictions, then let them keep doing it.

[ussoccer26]

Free speech is free speech though, why should there be a restriction on a residential place, but not other places? If you do the things I listed, then most of the time there will be civil action and/or legal action taken against the person.

There should be reasonable time and place restrictions on everyone, not one selective group.

I have not read up on NDAA enough to make a comment on it, but I am assuming there will be a court case about it.

I did state that it was ok for restrictions to be reasonable like the example I gave but why should they be restricted from a public area. Again it confuses me that only two were arrested. What is the restriction or charge? They were not defaming anyone or yelling fire. To me it looks like the cops were trying to shut them up but didn't have reasonable means to restrict all of them from being there.

[LetsGoWings]

I did state that it was ok for restrictions to be reasonable like the example I gave but why should they be restricted from a public area. Again it confuses me that only two were arrested. What is the restriction or charge? They were not defaming anyone or yelling fire. To me it looks like the cops were trying to shut them up but didn't have reasonable means to restrict all of them from being there.

I am not sure which area we are talking about, can you clarify? Thank you.

[ussoccer26]

Grand Central Station, New York

[jbs49238]

I guess, it's the fact they didn't ask for permission first...Not like they would get it anyways...People just don't want to hear about the problems, they would rather hide their heads in the sand and let the machine roll on, while they wait for the next episode of American Idol...It's far easier to say those hippys don't know what they're talking about, than to accually listen and think about it.  Using your brain just takes way too much effort, they want to be told how to think and then tell others their view point is right.

I don't think your statement is 100% accurate.  I think people who give two shakes do want to know, hear, learn, and understand, they do not want, expect, or deserve for that matter to be subjected to the in your face disorderly tactics that were used by this group.

If you want to gather a group and go scream at city hall, in my opinion is one thing, those are folks that are paid by you, make decisions on your behalf, and when they screw up should hear from you LOUD AND CLEAR.  However the average citizen, no matter what their agenda or motive is not beholden to hear your message, they may want to but should be able to do so on their terms... not yours.

Perfect example:  Any small town festival held in the huge city park during the summer.  Go to any and normally you will find some politically minded, issue charged group with a booth set up and runners handing out paphlets about their issue.  If you want to hear or read about what they have to say you stop or take and read.  If that group decides just to start yelling and screaming at the entire attending public they do and should get arrested for disturbing the peace... and ruining everyones day.  Forcing your voice on a semi captive audience, and assuming it is OK to do so because they care more about American Idol, is a much more dictitorial avenue than actually being arrested for doing it.  IMHO.

Ah see they do have permission. The first amendment. I guess you had better use them before you lose them too.

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.

...

Now I am assuming the highlighted text is what we have in mind here.

If you can prove that this groups message was the reason they were arrested I will grant you an EZ win here.  Read on.... peaceably assemble.... to assemble in peace.  I don't think trapping hundereds on a subway platform and forcing them to listen to that punk girls loud trap qualifies.  Most likely they were arrsted for public order type crimes (i.e. disturbing the peace, failure to follow a lawful order, or if the platforms are privately owned trespassing) but I guarandamtee you they were not arrested for what they were saying.

[jbs49238]

Again it confuses me that only two were arrested. What is the restriction or charge?

You are positive only two were arrested?  Were you there because the clip is pretty short and only shows what the author wanted... cops rough housing the girl because she had a message.  Maybe after those two were arrested the rest of the group dispersed?  Maybe the camera were all stolen and the rest of the folks (all being witness the the facist police actions) were rounded up and herded on the tracks to be slaughtered by an oncoming train, then the bodies disposed and the whole thing covered up in a massive government conspiracy the likes the protesters were warning about!!! Oh wait the video made YouTube so probably more the former than the later actually happened.