Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

jerwin wrote:

You'd flunk out of law school with cites like that.

This isn't law school, a court of law or a friggin debate society with rules.
It's a pissant web forum, he's got Google and he knows damn good and well.
This is about something else and we know what that is.

Truth hurts, eh?

In fairness, however, I did fail to find these magical supreme court rulings of yours. Quite the contrary, there are several that indicate the contrary view. Check out Bratty's wiki link, for example; the "notable incidents and court proceedings" section, for example.

Actually some of the stuff in that link, including some of the cases mentioned, should really disturb you.

No, when they go too far the courts slap them down.
Both sides.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

This isn't law school, a court of law or a friggin debate society with rules.
It's a pissant web forum, he's got Google and he knows damn good and well.
This is about something else and we know what that is.

Truth hurts, eh?

In fairness, however, I did fail to find these magical supreme court rulings of yours. Quite the contrary, there are several that indicate the contrary view. Check out Bratty's wiki link, for example; the "notable incidents and court proceedings" section, for example.

Actually some of the stuff in that link, including some of the cases mentioned, should really disturb you.

No, when they go too far the courts slap them down.
Both sides.

But like I said, I couldn't find Supreme Court rulings on the subject that support your position.

jerwin wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

No, when they go too far the courts slap them down.

A good court opinion delineates the boundaries using a formula. Courts don't want to make "judgement calls" based on wooly headed notions such as yours. They want a certain precision in the law.

Historical narrative, as it were...

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

See, that ruling would seem to me to render the entire concept unconstitutional.

In terms of blocking traffic, since time immemorial there have been really basic tactics like police barricades and such to ensure people can enter and leave the location unobstructed.

I see no reason whatever why any of that has to change.

If they are creating a walking path by barricade then they are in essence ruling that space inappropriate for protest. 

What about using a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at night, or disrupting a legislative hearing?  I'm not saying that every use of a FSZ is legal...many probably aren't.  However, time/place/manner restrictions are legal given that they're narrowly tailored and involve a substantial government interest (and leave open ample alternative avenues for speech).

I feel your outrage and share it.

Indeed, nothing to get emotional about.

user wrote:

Too far?

I swear, I just can't see how people can persist with this pre-9/11 mindset.

These started before 9-11.
They really took off with the riots over free trade. Remember those?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Indeed, nothing to get emotional about.

What precisely would you like for me to start hyperventilating about, Shnicky?  I'm obviously not demonstrating enough of an emotional response on this internet message board for your liking.

I understand the need for crowd control but I disagree with any use of such areas beyond that point (such as to keep protesters out of sight or ear shot as has happened previously).  What more can I say?

On the contrary, I'm attempting to make you happy but am unsure of the exact reaction you're looking for.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Only a bit of consistency.

Sorry?

I've read every major case on the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly several times over, many written before any controversy over the FSZ at the GOP convention.  I don't tend to view 1st Amendment issues in left vs. right  or Democrat vs. Republican terms.

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Only a bit of consistency.

Sorry?

I've read every major case on the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly several times over, many written before any controversy over the FSZ at the GOP convention.  I don't tend to view 1st Amendment issues in left vs. right  or Democrat vs. Republican terms.

And your endless threads about Gitmo et. al? Should we interpret your outrage on torture as a partisan argument?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

And your endless threads about Gitmo et. al? Should we interpret your outrage on torture as a partisan argument?

What on earth does "Gitmo" or "torture" have to do with this? 

It's true, I tend to get more excited about unlawful detentions and torture than I do about where the barricade is placed at the DNC convention.  That has nothing to do with 'partisanship.'

'[Tycho? wrote:

... Its disgusting that they're used at all, by either party.

Are these zones demanded by the party, by the federal government or by the local municipality?

resedit wrote:

I bet you guys wouldn't care were it not for the free speech zone used by the administration, which y'all wailed about. So you have to complain now, or your bias shows.

That's the liberal way of doing things.

They complain about "the other guy" doing something and then do it themselves.

The Republicans would never do such a thing.

You would never do such a thing.