Mr. Jefferson Would Not Approve

[lashicoN]

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Amendment I
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.

 

[thompal]

Tell me the differences then? Public is public right? Both are owned by the govt, both are meant to commemorate the memory of a person or persons that meant a great deal to the nation. So you'll have to qualify the strawman tag. You either have to agree that spontaneous protests are allowed at all or none...

and the court's opinion (not that it will probably make sense to most, but myself). Important parts bolded

"Both are owned by the government"? Umm, the government "owns" nothing. "Public" lands belong to, well, the public.

Saying that a military cemetery is exactly the same as a park run by the Park Department is like claiming that the Pope is exactly the same as Hitler (they were both German and male, yes?).

And do you suggest that courts are always right? If so, why are there courts of appeal? Is it your contention that if a court emits an opinion, that it is fair, just, and right? If so, then can you explain your support for the Dredd Scott opinion? No wait, that was later found to be wrong. Hmm, how can that be?

I would say that protests are not "allowed" by the government at all, because the government has no business deciding who can or can't express an opinion, whether that opinion supports the government, or opposes the government on any given issue. Are you willing to live in a society where you must ask the government for permission to disagree with it? If you grant the government the authority to pick and choose who may and may not express an opinion how is that any better than granting the government the ability to outlaw the expression of opinions completely? You may not agree with the opinions expressed by the protesters. Guess what - you are free to express your opposing opinion, or to ignore them completely.

It's an untidy process where people are free to express opinions, and others are free to disagree with them. Sometimes it's noisy, and sometimes you may have to walk around a group which has opinions with which you disagree. Thankfully, certain concepts and actions are protected by the US Constitution, because the founding fathers knew that governments, and those who profit from governments, exist solely to expand and protect their "power." From time to time, the government, and those who profit from the government, need to be reminded just how limited government authority is. Read Article I, Section 8, as well as the 1st 10 Amendments to get a good grasp of what the people who originally designed our government had in mind. (HINT: it was NOT a system where the government "granted permission" for people to express opinions - which, they rightly understood, implies the power to withhold permission. That would turn a RIGHT into a privilege. The "Right of Free Speech" would become the "Possibility of Acceptably Regulated Speech")

While those to advocate expanded government powers and authority would cheer for such increased intrusion into our lives, it flies in the face of everything the founding fathers believed or expressed. It would be more at home in a Soviet-style system of government.

Unfortunately, we are getting there rapidly. We don't need more government agents advocating the overthrow of the Constitution in their misguided desire to have an "orderly" society where nobody runs the risk of seeing or hearing something that upsets them.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"Both are owned by the government"? Umm, the government "owns" nothing. "Public" lands belong to, well, the public.

If the govt owns nothing and the will of the public supercedes all, well... everything is open for free reign. There shouldn't be a single prohibition on any govt (ie public) holdings. Heck, you should be able to enter the presidents residence anytime you wish, or walk on to the floor of the house while in session... but of course that would be ridiculous. I find it more ridiculous that you think that the govt doesnt "own" anything, as if it cannot make rule regarding property administered by it.

 

[thompal]

Yes, there are limits to Free speech. That limit is on the government and it clearly states that the people have unabridged freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights, it especially doesn't give us limited rights. The Bill of Rights should have been called the Bill of Restrictions on Federal Power, because that's exactly what it is. You've got it all twisted around, using it to actually deny rights to the people, instead of protecting them, which is your job. The first Amendment isn't a blank check, it's a list of things the Federal government isn't allowed to touch.

Hopefully, now you understand what the Bill of Rights is, how our Federal Government is supposed to operate, and why it's wrong to arrest people for slow dancing with ipods at the Jefferson Memorial.

People seem to forget that the government's ONLY authority is spelled out EXPLICITLY in the Constitution. ANYTHING NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THE GOVERNMENT is off-limits to the government. I don't remember anywhere in the Constitution where it grants authority to the government to regulate artistic means of expressing political speech.

 

[thompal]

If the govt owns nothing and the will of the public supercedes all, well... everything is open for free reign. There shouldn't be a single prohibition on any govt (ie public) holdings. Heck, you should be able to enter the presidents residence anytime you wish, or walk on to the floor of the house while in session... but of course that would be ridiculous. I find it more ridiculous that you think that the govt doesnt "own" anything, as if it cannot make rule regarding property administered by it.

"The will of the public. . ." Well, that would be a democracy, which also is NOT what we have. Keep trying. . . . .

 

[Kutnupe14]

People seem to forget that the government's ONLY authority is spelled out EXPLICITLY in the Constitution. ANYTHING NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THE GOVERNMENT is off-limits to the government. I don't remember anywhere in the Constitution where it grants authority to the government to regulate artistic means of expressing political speech.

And you seem to forget that the reference you are making is that of Implied Powers (something which allows the states to make the rules). Implied powers does not apply in this instance as Washington DC is NOT a state, and is administered directly by the federal govt.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I really had no idea that people were this un-informed about the limitations on free speech. It's honestly quite baffling that people understand so little concerning the subject or the powers of govt (extend to it since the inception of the Constitution) in limiting them.

 

[USMC_0311]

I really had no idea that people were this un-informed about the limitations on free speech. It's honestly quite baffling that people understand so little concerning the subject or the powers of govt (extend to it since the inception of the Constitution) in limiting them.

Free speech has limitations? How can it be free then?

 

[03mustgt]

I really had no idea that people were this un-informed about the limitations on free speech. It's honestly quite baffling that people understand so little concerning the subject or the powers of govt (extend to it since the inception of the Constitution) in limiting them.

I would not call it un-informed, more like ignores the rulings of our government concerning it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Free speech has limitations? How can it be free then?

examples: perjury, libel, slander, issues of national security, copyright infringement, inciting unlawful conduct, obscenity, extortion, fraud... so forth and so on.

 

[thompal]

And you seem to forget that the reference you are making is that of Implied Powers (something which allows the states to make the rules). Implied powers does not apply in this instance as Washington DC is NOT a state, and is administered directly by the federal govt.

No, I was not talking about state authority at all. Washington D.C. is FEDERAL, and thank you for agreeing that the FEDERAL Constitution is the ONLY controlling authority.

Show me where in the US Constitution that government is granted the authority to regulate (ban) free speech on public land.

Article and section please.

If it's NOT granted by the Constitution, then it doesn't exist (You HAVE read the 9th and 10th Amendments).

 

[USMC_0311]

examples: perjury, libel, slander, issues of national security, copyright infringement, inciting unlawful conduct, obscenity, extortion, fraud... so forth and so on.

Well that went right past you, sorry I will use purple text next time.

 

[thompal]

I really had no idea that people were this un-informed about the limitations on free speech. It's honestly quite baffling that people understand so little concerning the subject or the powers of govt (extend to it since the inception of the Constitution) in limiting them.

I really had no idea that government agents could be this un-informed about the limitations of government powers. It's honestly quite baffling that government agents who are tasked with defending our liberties understand so little concerning the subject or the limitations on the powers of government, or of the Constitution in limiting them.

 

[thompal]

examples: perjury, libel, slander, issues of national security, copyright infringement, inciting unlawful conduct, obscenity, extortion, fraud... so forth and so on.

Oh, I see. This is where you equate the term "freedom of speech" with "perjury, libel, slander, fraud, etc."

This is the exact same tactic used by other statists who equate the term "right to bare arms" with "murder, robbery, rape, etc."

It's a dishonest ploy when they do it, and it's equally dishonest when you do it. Stop it.

 

[03mustgt]

Oh, I see. This is where you equate the term "freedom of speech" with "perjury, libel, slander, fraud, etc."

This is the exact same tactic used by other statists who equate the term "right to bare arms" with "murder, robbery, rape, etc."

It's a dishonest ploy when they do it, and it's equally dishonest when you do it. Stop it.

These are all limitations on free speech, whats dishonest about it? Disorderly Conduct? Making unreasonable noise after being warned. The government, like it or not, has limited free speech. If you choose to ignore it then you are living in a fantasy world. Statist, more like realist.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Sooooo....you're in the "like it" camp?

 

[03mustgt]

Sooooo....you're in the "like it" camp?

I am in the realist group, meaning that there should be some limitations of free speech. Personally I would not want to walk down the side walk and here someone screaming the F word at me the entire time, after all it is the public area, its free speech right?

 

[USMC_0311]

I am in the realist group, meaning that there should be some limitations of free speech. Personally I would not want to walk down the side walk and here someone screaming the F word at me the entire time, after all it is the public area, its free speech right?

We still can say the f word right?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I am in the realist group, meaning that there should be some limitations of free speech. Personally I would not want to walk down the side walk and here someone screaming the F word at me the entire time, after all it is the public area, its free speech right?

That's easily fixed. Don't walk down the sidewalk. Or, get noise canceling or sound isolating headphones.

I can't hear a damn thing with mine in.

Problem solved, no laws needed, perfectly realistic.

Also, I'm not sure your problem is realistic. When is the last time that happened to you?

I think you might be a hyperbolist.

 

[RockofStrength]

The Constitution does not have any limitations placed upon the rights it protects. There is no "shall not abridge *unless*" clause in it. That interpretation of the Constitution was brought about by the Judicial system. The actual limit of the rights we are granted is primarily moral and societal. That is, we are limited not by law or penalty, but by the reactions of our fellow citizens.