Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

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).

Well, if I've got you wrong, I'm sorry. I might've been swayed by things like

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In principle, do you think it's okay to restrict the expression of political protest, whatever the label?

Sure, as long as there's a good reason to restrict it and there are ample alternative venues that are comparable (such as on the sidewalk as opposed to blocking the street or entrance to a building).

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I don't understand how it can even be constitutional.

Surely you recognize how people could exercise their freedom of speech to bring traffic, business or the workings of government to a grinding halt if there were no way to curb the time/place/manner in which speech is exercised.

You also kept hammering this strange notion of noise issues, which I feel is completely irrelevant to the issue.

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).

Then there was that comment about loud parties. I suspect I might have assumed you and kev were on the same side. But then he's not even trying to debate, so I shouldn't be doing that.

By the way, the ACLU has quite clearly spelled out that the free speech zones are content based, that supporters are routinely treated differently than critics.

All of which makes the whole thing completely indefensible, and not in any way related to noise or crowd control. You're on board with that, right?

It would be nice for you to acknowledge that you completely misrepresented my previous posts in this thread in your last post.  It would go a long way towards convincing me that you're interested in a honest discussion here.

By the way, the ACLU has quite clearly spelled out that the free speech zones are content based, that supporters are routinely treated differently than critics.

All of which makes the whole thing completely indefensible, and not in any way related to noise or crowd control. You're on board with that, right?

If I say it just *one* more time will it finally sink in?

There are defensible actions the government can take to regulate speech.  There are also a variety of indefensible actions often taken against speech that should be challenged in court.  The term "free speech zone" (or whatever a protest area is referred to) carries zero legal meaning, and can certainly be constitutional (though in the past many high profile uses of such zones have NOT been).   

As I noted much earlier in the thread...I recognize the need to keep areas safe and control crowds.  Beyond that, I do not agree with the use of such restrictions.