Re: # Milt Shook is floundering in First Amendment quicksand
nevermore
>Yeah, I think so. You're too incredibly stupid to be believed.
>
>Seriously, read what you just wrote and explain to us why it's NOT
>stupid...
I'll write it again and I'll challenge you to explain it away.....
Seriously, Milt, if you want to claim that your First Amendment rights
are violated by this private citizen booting out from in front of his
store, you'll have to show where the First Amendment prohibits him
from doing that...
So far, all you've done is bluster and fluster and change your story..
First Milt says:
"I am going to bring suit against the store
owner. It is First Amendment based"
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2011b7116c7c26d5?hl=en&
then Milt says:
And when I sue, my First Amendment
claim won't be against YOU; it'll be against the state,
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RsqdnZmLhL5ofAHdRVn-sw%40comcast.com
Then Milt says:
"taking someone to court over this has nothing
to do with the First Amendment. It has to do with the Bill of Rights,
in part, but not the First"
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/c84b19851d452bd5?hl=en&
You're original claim was:
"if you're standing on the corner, legally handing out flyers,
speaking out against the store in front of which you're standing,
and the owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big guys remove
you from in front of his building, you have the basis for a Forst
Amendment-based lawsuit,"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RsqdnZmLhL5ofAHdRVn-sw%40comcast.com
...so now I'm asking you to show exactly the place where the First
Amendment addresses the issue of this store owner taking your fliers
and booting you out from in front of his store..
I'm going to be gone for a few days, so take your time....
milt....@gmail.com
nevermore wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2006 11:55:51 -0800, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Yeah, I think so. You're too incredibly stupid to be believed.
> >
> >Seriously, read what you just wrote and explain to us why it's NOT
> >stupid...
>
> I'll write it again and I'll challenge you to explain it away.....
>
> Seriously, Milt, if you want to claim that your First Amendment rights
> are violated by this private citizen booting out from in front of his
> store, you'll have to show where the First Amendment prohibits him
> from doing that...
>
The Consitution serves as a limit on government action, not individual
action. BUT, if I have a right to free speech, and ask the government
to protect it, they can't refuse, because the First Amendment precludes
them refusing.
>
> So far, all you've done is bluster and fluster and change your story..
I've never changed my story.
>
>
> First Milt says:
> "I am going to bring suit against the store
> owner. It is First Amendment based"
> --Milt Shook
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2011b7116c7c26d5?hl=en&
>
Interesting. What I actually said in the above-linked post was:
"If you can read this post and make that claim, then your inability to
read is CERTIFIED. You are demonstrated ILLITERATE if you think that
what is written below in any way "runs away" from that.
"I would file suit, and it would be based on the fact that I have a
First Amendment right to be on that sidewalk, and I'm giving the
government the opportunity to protect that."
Also, note how many times I explained myself, and did so consistently.
> then Milt says:
> And when I sue, my First Amendment
> claim won't be against YOU; it'll be against the state,
> --Milt Shook
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RsqdnZmLhL5ofAHdRVn-sw%40comcast.com
>
Interesting. The above statement does not appear in the link above.
>
> Then Milt says:
> "taking someone to court over this has nothing
> to do with the First Amendment. It has to do with the Bill of Rights,
> in part, but not the First"
> --Milt Shook
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/c84b19851d452bd5?hl=en&
>
I never said the above in the post linked above. What I did say in that
post was:
"It's a civil matter. if you think you have evidence that they didn't
publish it, though they SHOULD have, (for instance, if they printed a
shitload of pro-issue articles but no anti-issue articles, you might be
able to bring suit, but it'd be a tough row to hoe.
"Having the right to free speech, doesn't mean you're entitled to speak
whenever or wherever you wish. But if you're standing on the corner,
legally handing out flyers, speaking out against the store in front of
which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes your fliers
and
has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have the
basis for a Forst Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
>
> You're original claim was:
> "if you're standing on the corner, legally handing out flyers,
> speaking out against the store in front of which you're standing,
> and the owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big guys remove
> you from in front of his building, you have the basis for a Forst
> Amendment-based lawsuit,"
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RsqdnZmLhL5ofAHdRVn-sw%40comcast.com
>
Yeah, I do.
> ...so now I'm asking you to show exactly the place where the First
> Amendment addresses the issue of this store owner taking your fliers
> and booting you out from in front of his store..
Are you actually asserting that the store owner has a Constitutional
right to remove you from the public sidewalk in front of his store? And
are you also asserting that the First Amendment doesn't protect your
right to express yourself in an otherwise legal manner on a public
sidewalk?
Amazing. Check the dates on the posts he links to above. TWO YEARS he
has been going on about this, and he still doesn't get even the most
basic fallacies in his argument.
> I'm going to be gone for a few days, so take your time....
Yeah... sure... as if I have to answer such inanity. This is too stupid
to even acknowledge...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>nevermore wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2006 11:55:51 -0800, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Yeah, I think so. You're too incredibly stupid to be believed.
>> >
>> >Seriously, read what you just wrote and explain to us why it's NOT
>> >stupid...
>>
>> I'll write it again and I'll challenge you to explain it away.....
>>
>> Seriously, Milt, if you want to claim that your First Amendment rights
>> are violated by this private citizen booting out from in front of his
>> store, you'll have to show where the First Amendment prohibits him
>> from doing that...
>>
>No....
>
>The Consitution serves as a limit on government action, not individual
>action. BUT, if I have a right to free speech, and ask the government
>to protect it, they can't refuse, because the First Amendment precludes
>them refusing.
That's an incredibly interesting legal theory.
Let's apply it.
You work at McDonald's.
You great customers with "Good Morning you piece of shit".
McDonald's fires you.
You ask the government to get you your job back and they can't refuse?
Tell us how that is inconsitent with your view Milt.
2275 Dead
Linder) wrote:
>milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>nevermore wrote:
>>> On 21 Feb 2006 11:55:51 -0800, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >Yeah, I think so. You're too incredibly stupid to be believed.
>>> >
>>> >Seriously, read what you just wrote and explain to us why it's NOT
>>> >stupid...
>>>
>>> I'll write it again and I'll challenge you to explain it away.....
>>>
>>> Seriously, Milt, if you want to claim that your First Amendment rights
>>> are violated by this private citizen booting out from in front of his
>>> store, you'll have to show where the First Amendment prohibits him
>>> from doing that...
>>>
>>No....
>>
>>The Consitution serves as a limit on government action, not individual
>>action. BUT, if I have a right to free speech, and ask the government
>>to protect it, they can't refuse, because the First Amendment precludes
>>them refusing.
>
>That's an incredibly interesting legal theory.
>
>Let's apply it.
>You work at McDonald's.
>You great customers with "Good Morning you piece of shit".
>McDonald's fires you.
>
>You ask the government to get you your job back and they can't refuse?
No, because you are intruding on the property rights of McDonalds.
>
>Tell us how that is inconsitent with your view Milt.
Nothing stops you from doing it here, though.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
milt....@gmail.com
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >nevermore wrote:
> >> On 21 Feb 2006 11:55:51 -0800, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yeah, I think so. You're too incredibly stupid to be believed.
> >> >
> >> >Seriously, read what you just wrote and explain to us why it's NOT
> >> >stupid...
> >>
> >> I'll write it again and I'll challenge you to explain it away.....
> >>
> >> Seriously, Milt, if you want to claim that your First Amendment rights
> >> are violated by this private citizen booting out from in front of his
> >> store, you'll have to show where the First Amendment prohibits him
> >> from doing that...
> >>
> >No....
> >
> >The Consitution serves as a limit on government action, not individual
> >action. BUT, if I have a right to free speech, and ask the government
> >to protect it, they can't refuse, because the First Amendment precludes
> >them refusing.
>
> That's an incredibly interesting legal theory.
>
> Let's apply it.
> You work at McDonald's.
> You great customers with "Good Morning you piece of shit".
> McDonald's fires you.
>
> You ask the government to get you your job back and they can't refuse?
Tell us where you derive the right to work at McDonald's.
You're too stupid to even realize there's a difference between standing
behind a counter at McDonald's and standing on a public street corner.
>
> Tell us how that is inconsitent with your view Milt.
The scenario I gave has nothing to do with passing out flyers or free
speech on private property.. If I was standing iside the store owner's
store, he would have every right to kick me out.
milt....@gmail.com
nevermore wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2006 11:55:51 -0800, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Yeah, I think so. You're too incredibly stupid to be believed.
> >
> >Seriously, read what you just wrote and explain to us why it's NOT
> >stupid...
>
> I'll write it again and I'll challenge you to explain it away.....
Gotta love it when he realizes he screwed up and thinks he can snip
away the evidence.
THIS is what I am referring to...
This is YOU:
"Where exactly in the First amendment does it say that you have the
right to stand on a street corner and hand out flyers?"
and
"Where exactly in the First, Seventh and Ninth Amendments does it say
that this fellow can't do anything?"
> Seriously, Milt, if you want to claim that your First Amendment rights
> are violated by this private citizen booting out from in front of his
> store, you'll have to show where the First Amendment prohibits him
> from doing that...
>
>
> So far, all you've done is bluster and fluster and change your story..
>
Like I said...
Steven Canyon... When you're low on irony, he'll load ya up in every
post...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
So Milt's premise is wrong. Thanks Zepp.
>>
>>Tell us how that is inconsitent with your view Milt.
>
>Nothing stops you from doing it here, though.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
What does it matter Milt?
>You're too stupid to even realize there's a difference between standing
>behind a counter at McDonald's and standing on a public street corner.
Well, I didn't see that distinction in your legal theory.
Are you modifying your theory?
>> Tell us how that is inconsitent with your view Milt.
>
>The scenario I gave has nothing to do with passing out flyers or free
>speech on private property.. If I was standing iside the store owner's
>store, he would have every right to kick me out.
That's has nothing to do with the scenario I posited Milt. Tell us
how my scenario is inconsistent with your new theory.
[ snip ]
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
Jeffrey, why are you here, really?
If you have to ask that question, you have no clue what you're talking
about.
>
> >You're too stupid to even realize there's a difference between standing
> >behind a counter at McDonald's and standing on a public street corner.
>
> Well, I didn't see that distinction in your legal theory.
You have to be kidding. How many times did I capitalize the word PUBLIC
for you and Canyon? It was a hint, Jeffrey.
In the public sphere, you're entitled to rights protection.
In the private sphere, you are not.
There are exceptions to both, but generally speaking, this is the case.
McDonald''s is private property, and you have limited free speech
rights therein.
> Are you modifying your theory?
No. I don't have to.
> >> Tell us how that is inconsitent with your view Milt.
> >
> >The scenario I gave has nothing to do with passing out flyers or free
> >speech on private property.. If I was standing iside the store owner's
> >store, he would have every right to kick me out.
>
> That's has nothing to do with the scenario I posited Milt. Tell us
> how my scenario is inconsistent with your new theory.
>
Jeffrey, you are a retard. Your scenario is in no way analogous to mine
Jeffrey Scott Linder
The fact that you can't and/or won't answer the question speaks
volumes.
>>
>> >You're too stupid to even realize there's a difference between standing
>> >behind a counter at McDonald's and standing on a public street corner.
>>
>> Well, I didn't see that distinction in your legal theory.
>
>You have to be kidding. How many times did I capitalize the word PUBLIC
>for you and Canyon? It was a hint, Jeffrey.
>
>In the public sphere, you're entitled to rights protection.
True enough.
>In the private sphere, you are not.
Not true.
>There are exceptions to both, but generally speaking, this is the case.
>McDonald''s is private property, and you have limited free speech
>rights therein.
Ah...so you're finally getting. Your right to free speech CAN be
abridged by private citizens so YOU don't have a First Amendment
action against the store owner OR the government. The store owner
can't violate your first amendment rights and the government didn't.
Case close.
>> Are you modifying your theory?
>
>No. I don't have to.
No, you don't...but its still useless anyway.
>> >> Tell us how that is inconsitent with your view Milt.
>> >
>> >The scenario I gave has nothing to do with passing out flyers or free
>> >speech on private property.. If I was standing iside the store owner's
>> >store, he would have every right to kick me out.
>>
>> That's has nothing to do with the scenario I posited Milt. Tell us
>> how my scenario is inconsistent with your new theory.
>>
>Jeffrey, you are a retard. Your scenario is in no way analogous to mine
Who said it was Milt??
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
Please, Jeffrey.... don't make it worse for yourself.
>
> >>
> >> >You're too stupid to even realize there's a difference between standing
> >> >behind a counter at McDonald's and standing on a public street corner.
> >>
> >> Well, I didn't see that distinction in your legal theory.
> >
> >You have to be kidding. How many times did I capitalize the word PUBLIC
> >for you and Canyon? It was a hint, Jeffrey.
> >
> >In the public sphere, you're entitled to rights protection.
>
> True enough.
And yet, you go on to contradict that below...
>
> >In the private sphere, you are not.
>
> Not true.
It IS true. You are not entitled to free spech protection on private
property. You r boss CAN tell you not to wear clothing or buttons with
certain slogans in the workplace, for example.
>
> >There are exceptions to both, but generally speaking, this is the case.
> >McDonald''s is private property, and you have limited free speech
> >rights therein.
>
> Ah...so you're finally getting. Your right to free speech CAN be
> abridged by private citizens so YOU don't have a First Amendment
> action against the store owner OR the government. The store owner
> can't violate your first amendment rights and the government didn't.
In the scenario I gacve, I was standing on a PUBLIC sidewalk. I even
Capitalized PUBLIC a whole bunch of times to give you a hint. And if
someone keeps you from speaking in public, the government is duty-bound
to protect you and stop him.
>
> Case close.
Dumbass.
>
> >> Are you modifying your theory?
> >
> >No. I don't have to.
>
> No, you don't...but its still useless anyway.
>
> >> >> Tell us how that is inconsitent with your view Milt.
> >> >
> >> >The scenario I gave has nothing to do with passing out flyers or free
> >> >speech on private property.. If I was standing iside the store owner's
> >> >store, he would have every right to kick me out.
> >>
> >> That's has nothing to do with the scenario I posited Milt. Tell us
> >> how my scenario is inconsistent with your new theory.
> >>
> >Jeffrey, you are a retard. Your scenario is in no way analogous to mine
>
> Who said it was Milt??
>
So, if it's not analogous, it's not relevant. You wouldn't be throwing
out non-sequiters, would you?
milt....@gmail.com
My premise has NEVER included private property. In fact, read closely,
Jeffrey. I even said that, was I passing out flyers inside of his
store, he would have every right to remove me.
Calling you dumb as a post is an insult to posts everywhere...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Well, then why didn't you say so Milt?
>In fact, read closely,
>Jeffrey. I even said that, was I passing out flyers inside of his
>store, he would have every right to remove me.
That's your scenario Milt, not your theory. Try to keep it together
Milt.
>Calling you dumb as a post is an insult to posts everywhere...
Boy-o, such originality!
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Well Milt, you can't kill me on private property.
You may not enslave me on private property.
You may not slander me on private property.
You may not assault me on private property.
So indeed my rights are protected in the private sphere.
>> >There are exceptions to both, but generally speaking, this is the case.
>> >McDonald''s is private property, and you have limited free speech
>> >rights therein.
>>
>> Ah...so you're finally getting. Your right to free speech CAN be
>> abridged by private citizens so YOU don't have a First Amendment
>> action against the store owner OR the government. The store owner
>> can't violate your first amendment rights and the government didn't.
>
>In the scenario I gacve, I was standing on a PUBLIC sidewalk. I even
>Capitalized PUBLIC a whole bunch of times to give you a hint. And if
>someone keeps you from speaking in public, the government is duty-bound
>to protect you and stop him.
No one has said they aren't Milt. But back to your ORIGINAL claim
Milt. You don't have a First Amendment case against them:
Need I remind you:
"if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking
out against the store in front of which you're standing, and the
owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big guys remove you from
in front of his building, you have the basis for a Forst (sic)
Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no government was
involved." --Milt Shook.
JSL
Lloyd King
"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:43fdee10....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>It IS true. You are not entitled to free spech protection on private
>>property. You r boss CAN tell you not to wear clothing or buttons with
>>certain slogans in the workplace, for example.
>
> Well Milt, you can't kill me on private property.
> You may not enslave me on private property.
> You may not slander me on private property.
> You may not assault me on private property.
Yes, but you MAY shoot a lawyer on private property. Well, not to kill him,
but just to pepper him a little.
>
> So indeed my rights are protected in the private sphere.
And your lawyer then has the right to apologize for getting shot on private
property.
milt....@gmail.com
Would you please point out the "against them" in the above? That is
Canyon's creation. I am going to court, and I'm going to demand an
order telling the store owner not to do it again, and it's going to be
based on the fact that I have the right to be there in the first place.
And yeah, when I file for the order, I'll name the store owner and his
goons.
Where is the "against them" part, exactly?? That's a straw man you
ignoramuses keep coming up with, because you have no clue what a
lawsuit actually is. It's a settlement of two claims; I'm claiming I
have a right to be on the sidewalk; he's claiming (if he's really
stupid) a right to drive me off the corner. We can't both be right, can
we?
So, where does Canyon (and you and Marty McFly, apparently) get this
idea that a judge will "laugh me out of court" in such a circumstance?
Please cite the legal basis for such a ridiculous claim.
milt....@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >In the public sphere, you're entitled to rights protection.
> >>
> >> True enough.
> >
> >And yet, you go on to contradict that below...
> >>
> >> >In the private sphere, you are not.
> >>
> >> Not true.
> >
> >It IS true. You are not entitled to free spech protection on private
> >property. You r boss CAN tell you not to wear clothing or buttons with
> >certain slogans in the workplace, for example.
Okay, not that any of the following has anything to do with the First
Amendment, but...
>
> Well Milt, you can't kill me on private property.
Oh, really? Depends on whether you're trespassing, ain't it?
> You may not enslave me on private property.
Does anyone have a right to enslave? I think the 13th Amendment took
away that "right"...
> You may not slander me on private property.
If the "slander" never leaves the private property, it's not slander,
by definition, you idiot.
> You may not assault me on private property.
See the "kill" declaration. If you're trespassing, it's not necessarily
assault.
>
> So indeed my rights are protected in the private sphere.
No, they're not.
I would note that none of the above have anything to do with protected
rights.
>
> >> >There are exceptions to both, but generally speaking, this is the case.
> >> >McDonald''s is private property, and you have limited free speech
> >> >rights therein.
> >>
> >> Ah...so you're finally getting. Your right to free speech CAN be
> >> abridged by private citizens so YOU don't have a First Amendment
> >> action against the store owner OR the government. The store owner
> >> can't violate your first amendment rights and the government didn't.
> >
> >In the scenario I gacve, I was standing on a PUBLIC sidewalk. I even
> >Capitalized PUBLIC a whole bunch of times to give you a hint. And if
> >someone keeps you from speaking in public, the government is duty-bound
> >to protect you and stop him.
>
> No one has said they aren't Milt. But back to your ORIGINAL claim
> Milt. You don't have a First Amendment case against them:
Then what is it based on? If I'm standiong on your lawn and you have
two guys run me off, I would not be able to take you to court. Why?
because I have no First Amendment rights on your front lawn. And that
is PRECISELY because the Bill of Rights limits government, and
government has no jurisdiction on private property.
>
> Need I remind you:
>
> "if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking
> out against the store in front of which you're standing, and the
> owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big guys remove you from
> in front of his building, you have the basis for a Forst (sic)
> Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no government was
> involved." --Milt Shook.
>
And no matter how many times you post it and demonstrate your ignorance
of what I'm talking about, I'm still correct.
milt....@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >In the public sphere, you're entitled to rights protection.
> >>
> >> True enough.
> >
> >And yet, you go on to contradict that below...
> >>
> >> >In the private sphere, you are not.
> >>
> >> Not true.
> >
> >It IS true. You are not entitled to free spech protection on private
> >property. You r boss CAN tell you not to wear clothing or buttons with
> >certain slogans in the workplace, for example.
Okay, not that any of the following has anything to do with the First
Amendment, but...
>
> Well Milt, you can't kill me on private property.
Oh, really? Depends on whether you're trespassing, ain't it?
> You may not enslave me on private property.
Does anyone have a right to enslave? I think the 13th Amendment took
away that "right"...
> You may not slander me on private property.
If the "slander" never leaves the private property, it's not slander,
by definition, you idiot.
> You may not assault me on private property.
See the "kill" declaration. If you're trespassing, it's not necessarily
assault.
>
> So indeed my rights are protected in the private sphere.
No, they're not.
I would note that none of the above have anything to do with protected
rights.
>
> >> >There are exceptions to both, but generally speaking, this is the case.
> >> >McDonald''s is private property, and you have limited free speech
> >> >rights therein.
> >>
> >> Ah...so you're finally getting. Your right to free speech CAN be
> >> abridged by private citizens so YOU don't have a First Amendment
> >> action against the store owner OR the government. The store owner
> >> can't violate your first amendment rights and the government didn't.
> >
> >In the scenario I gacve, I was standing on a PUBLIC sidewalk. I even
> >Capitalized PUBLIC a whole bunch of times to give you a hint. And if
> >someone keeps you from speaking in public, the government is duty-bound
> >to protect you and stop him.
>
> No one has said they aren't Milt. But back to your ORIGINAL claim
> Milt. You don't have a First Amendment case against them:
Then what is it based on? If I'm standing on your lawn and you have two
guys run me off, I would not be able to take you to court. Why? because
I have no First Amendment rights on your front lawn. And that is
PRECISELY because the Bill of Rights limits government, and government
has no jurisdiction on private property.
>
> Need I remind you:
>
> "if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking
> out against the store in front of which you're standing, and the
> owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big guys remove you from
> in front of his building, you have the basis for a Forst (sic)
> Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no government was
> involved." --Milt Shook.
>
And no matter how many times you post it and demonstrate your ignorance
of what I'm talking about, I'm still correct.
>
>
>
>
> >>
milt....@gmail.com
I have said it... about a billion times.
>
> >In fact, read closely,
> >Jeffrey. I even said that, was I passing out flyers inside of his
> >store, he would have every right to remove me.
>
> That's your scenario Milt, not your theory. Try to keep it together
> Milt.
No, Jeffrey, that's a FACT.
>
> >Calling you dumb as a post is an insult to posts everywhere...
>
> Boy-o, such originality!
>
Well, you don't understand much of anything... originality might throw
you...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Well, since the government didn't remove you, or prevent you from
being on the sidewalk lawfully one must assume that you mean the store
owner and his bullies.
>That is
>Canyon's creation. I am going to court, and I'm going to demand an
>order telling the store owner not to do it again, and it's going to be
>based on the fact that I have the right to be there in the first place.
Yes, you do. But you don't have a first amendment case against the
store owner as he is not the state and you don't have a first
amendment case agains the government because it didn't remove you from
the sidewalk.
>And yeah, when I file for the order, I'll name the store owner and his
>goons.
>
>Where is the "against them" part, exactly??
Well, if you're nameing the store owner I guess you answered your own
question.
>That's a straw man you
>ignoramuses keep coming up with, because you have no clue what a
>lawsuit actually is. It's a settlement of two claims; I'm claiming I
>have a right to be on the sidewalk; he's claiming (if he's really
>stupid) a right to drive me off the corner. We can't both be right, can
>we?
Of course not.
>So, where does Canyon (and you and Marty McFly, apparently) get this
>idea that a judge will "laugh me out of court" in such a circumstance?
>Please cite the legal basis for such a ridiculous claim.
Because the store owner didn't violate the first amendment.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
><mercy snip>
>
>> >> >
>> >> >In the public sphere, you're entitled to rights protection.
>> >>
>> >> True enough.
>> >
>> >And yet, you go on to contradict that below...
>> >>
>> >> >In the private sphere, you are not.
>> >>
>> >> Not true.
>> >
>> >It IS true. You are not entitled to free spech protection on private
>> >property. You r boss CAN tell you not to wear clothing or buttons with
>> >certain slogans in the workplace, for example.
>
>Okay, not that any of the following has anything to do with the First
>Amendment, but...
>>
>> Well Milt, you can't kill me on private property.
>
>Oh, really? Depends on whether you're trespassing, ain't it?
No, not really. Your life must be in danger for you to take such
prejudicial action. You can't shoot someone for knocking on your
door.
>> You may not enslave me on private property.
>
>Does anyone have a right to enslave? I think the 13th Amendment took
>away that "right"...
Well, that right is protected in the private sphere. You said they
weren't. Which is it?
>
>> You may not slander me on private property.
>
>If the "slander" never leaves the private property, it's not slander,
>by definition, you idiot.
>
>> You may not assault me on private property.
>
>See the "kill" declaration. If you're trespassing, it's not necessarily
>assault.
You still can't "kill" me just for trespassing Milt.
>>
>> So indeed my rights are protected in the private sphere.
>
>No, they're not.
LOL. You just said they were. Even you admit that you can't enslave
me.
>I would note that none of the above have anything to do with protected
>rights.
If you say so.
>>
>> >> >There are exceptions to both, but generally speaking, this is the case.
>> >> >McDonald''s is private property, and you have limited free speech
>> >> >rights therein.
>> >>
>> >> Ah...so you're finally getting. Your right to free speech CAN be
>> >> abridged by private citizens so YOU don't have a First Amendment
>> >> action against the store owner OR the government. The store owner
>> >> can't violate your first amendment rights and the government didn't.
>> >
>> >In the scenario I gacve, I was standing on a PUBLIC sidewalk. I even
>> >Capitalized PUBLIC a whole bunch of times to give you a hint. And if
>> >someone keeps you from speaking in public, the government is duty-bound
>> >to protect you and stop him.
>>
>> No one has said they aren't Milt. But back to your ORIGINAL claim
>> Milt. You don't have a First Amendment case against them:
>
>Then what is it based on?
Based on? Your right to go about your business without being
interfered with by another individual that you aren't harming.
>If I'm standiong on your lawn and you have
>two guys run me off, I would not be able to take you to court.
Hell, I'll just have them shoot you to put you out of your misery.
>Why?
>because I have no First Amendment rights on your front lawn. And that
>is PRECISELY because the Bill of Rights limits government, and
>government has no jurisdiction on private property.
The Bill of Rights limits the government! Good Milt. How did the
government remove you from the sidewalk?
>>
>> Need I remind you:
>>
>> "if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking
>> out against the store in front of which you're standing, and the
>> owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big guys remove you from
>> in front of his building, you have the basis for a Forst (sic)
>> Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no government was
>> involved." --Milt Shook.
>>
>
>And no matter how many times you post it and demonstrate your ignorance
>of what I'm talking about, I'm still correct.
I think Milt just stumbled on the definition of insanity!
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
You simply cannot see this, can you? Please read the scenario again,
you putz.
There is nothing punitive in what I am doing. I'm not "going after" the
asshole store owner for running me off the sidewalk the first time. I
have said repeatedly that I'm trying to get the judge to assert my
right to be there, and prevent this guy from doing it again.
Got it?
>
> >That is
> >Canyon's creation. I am going to court, and I'm going to demand an
> >order telling the store owner not to do it again, and it's going to be
> >based on the fact that I have the right to be there in the first place.
>
> Yes, you do. But you don't have a first amendment case against the
> store owner as he is not the state and you don't have a first
> amendment case agains the government because it didn't remove you from
> the sidewalk.
I have a First Amendment case, because the First Amendment guarantees
my right to be on that sidewalk, assuming that all other laws are
followed.
>
> >And yeah, when I file for the order, I'll name the store owner and his
> >goons.
> >
> >Where is the "against them" part, exactly??
>
> Well, if you're nameing the store owner I guess you answered your own
> question.
Really? Please explain. It depends on how I name them when I go to
court, huh?
> >That's a straw man you
> >ignoramuses keep coming up with, because you have no clue what a
> >lawsuit actually is. It's a settlement of two claims; I'm claiming I
> >have a right to be on the sidewalk; he's claiming (if he's really
> >stupid) a right to drive me off the corner. We can't both be right, can
> >we?
>
> Of course not.
And yet, by "laugh(ing) me out of court," the judge would be saying
just that.
>
> >So, where does Canyon (and you and Marty McFly, apparently) get this
> >idea that a judge will "laugh me out of court" in such a circumstance?
> >Please cite the legal basis for such a ridiculous claim.
>
> Because the store owner didn't violate the first amendment.
>
No, you idiot. But the JUDGE would, if he "laughs me out of court."
Jesus, this is so basic. I feel like I'm teaching civics to the kids on
the short bus...
milt....@gmail.com
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> ><mercy snip>
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In the public sphere, you're entitled to rights protection.
> >> >>
> >> >> True enough.
> >> >
> >> >And yet, you go on to contradict that below...
> >> >>
> >> >> >In the private sphere, you are not.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not true.
> >> >
> >> >It IS true. You are not entitled to free spech protection on private
> >> >property. You r boss CAN tell you not to wear clothing or buttons with
> >> >certain slogans in the workplace, for example.
> >
> >Okay, not that any of the following has anything to do with the First
> >Amendment, but...
> >>
> >> Well Milt, you can't kill me on private property.
> >
> >Oh, really? Depends on whether you're trespassing, ain't it?
>
> No, not really. Your life must be in danger for you to take such
> prejudicial action. You can't shoot someone for knocking on your
> door.
First of all, it depends on the state.
Second, what I said contradicts what you said. You made the plain
statement that I can't kill you on private property. Obviously, I can.
>
> >> You may not enslave me on private property.
> >
> >Does anyone have a right to enslave? I think the 13th Amendment took
> >away that "right"...
>
> Well, that right is protected in the private sphere. You said they
> weren't. Which is it?
It's impossible to enslave someone in the "private sphere," Jeffrey,
you dumbass. The minute you hold another person against their will, you
have invaded their private sphere, and it becomes the "public
sphere"... do you get that?
You do understand that the difference between "public sphere" and
'private sphere" is not dependent solely on property rights, correct?
> >> You may not slander me on private property.
> >
> >If the "slander" never leaves the private property, it's not slander,
> >by definition, you idiot.
He didn't answer this one. erhaps he figured out the inanity of
including slander in his rant.
> >
> >> You may not assault me on private property.
> >
> >See the "kill" declaration. If you're trespassing, it's not necessarily
> >assault.
>
> You still can't "kill" me just for trespassing Milt.
Again, it depends on the state, and whether or not there are posted
warnings. But yeah, in many cases, the property owner probably could...
>
> >>
> >> So indeed my rights are protected in the private sphere.
> >
> >No, they're not.
>
> LOL. You just said they were. Even you admit that you can't enslave
> me.
Because enslavement, by definition, cannot happen in the "private
sphere," you dipshit. Do you even think?
>
> >I would note that none of the above have anything to do with protected
> >rights.
>
> If you say so.
If I say so? Slander and slavery are off the table, because you have no
right to do either, and by definition, they would necessarily happen in
the public sphere. As for killing, yeah, there are often exceptions,
but you know what? If Joe Blow has warnings posted all over the
perimeter of his property that you could be shot for trespassing, or he
has guard dogs and signs posted, the law says you enter at your own
risk, and he will probably be within his rights in killing you. Not
always, but a lot of the time.
>
> >>
> >> >> >There are exceptions to both, but generally speaking, this is the case.
> >> >> >McDonald''s is private property, and you have limited free speech
> >> >> >rights therein.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah...so you're finally getting. Your right to free speech CAN be
> >> >> abridged by private citizens so YOU don't have a First Amendment
> >> >> action against the store owner OR the government. The store owner
> >> >> can't violate your first amendment rights and the government didn't.
> >> >
> >> >In the scenario I gacve, I was standing on a PUBLIC sidewalk. I even
> >> >Capitalized PUBLIC a whole bunch of times to give you a hint. And if
> >> >someone keeps you from speaking in public, the government is duty-bound
> >> >to protect you and stop him.
> >>
> >> No one has said they aren't Milt. But back to your ORIGINAL claim
> >> Milt. You don't have a First Amendment case against them:
> >
> >Then what is it based on?
>
> Based on? Your right to go about your business without being
> interfered with by another individual that you aren't harming.
Of course, if I have no right to be on that street corner passing out
flyers, then what is he interfering with? And if I have the right to
not be interfered with, where does that derive from, and why am I not
entitled to a court order preventing him from doing it subsequently?
>
> >If I'm standing on your lawn and you have
> >two guys run me off, I would not be able to take you to court.
>
> Hell, I'll just have them shoot you to put you out of your misery.
Depends on where you live and whether it's posted.
>
> >Why?
> >because I have no First Amendment rights on your front lawn. And that
> >is PRECISELY because the Bill of Rights limits government, and
> >government has no jurisdiction on private property.
>
> The Bill of Rights limits the government! Good Milt. How did the
> government remove you from the sidewalk?
Jesus, you simply cannot get from point A to Point B, can you?
Read what I said again, you fucktard.
I am getting an order to stop him from doing it AGAIN. NEVER have I
demanded compensation for the first removal from the PUBLIC sidewalk.
I'm going to court to get them to stop him from doing it again.
> >> Need I remind you:
> >>
> >> "if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking
> >> out against the store in front of which you're standing, and the
> >> owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big guys remove you from
> >> in front of his building, you have the basis for a Forst (sic)
> >> Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no government was
> >> involved." --Milt Shook.
> >>
> >
> >And no matter how many times you post it and demonstrate your ignorance
> >of what I'm talking about, I'm still correct.
>
> I think Milt just stumbled on the definition of insanity!
>
Yeah, I must be insane. I'm actually trying to teach a grown retard
basic civics. The Usenet short bus certainly seems to be crowded.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
You already have the right to be there Milt. No one is disputing
that. So if you're bringing a first amendment action against the
store owner what would you have the judge do Milt as the store owner
can't violate the first amendment? If you are bringing the action
against the government then what would you have the judge do as the
state didn't violate the first amendment?
>
>>
>> >That is
>> >Canyon's creation. I am going to court, and I'm going to demand an
>> >order telling the store owner not to do it again, and it's going to be
>> >based on the fact that I have the right to be there in the first place.
>>
>> Yes, you do. But you don't have a first amendment case against the
>> store owner as he is not the state and you don't have a first
>> amendment case agains the government because it didn't remove you from
>> the sidewalk.
>
>I have a First Amendment case, because the First Amendment guarantees
>my right to be on that sidewalk, assuming that all other laws are
>followed.
Well, the state didn't remove you from the sidewalk Zepp so how could
this be a First Amendment case?
>>
>> >And yeah, when I file for the order, I'll name the store owner and his
>> >goons.
>> >
>> >Where is the "against them" part, exactly??
>>
>> Well, if you're nameing the store owner I guess you answered your own
>> question.
>
>Really? Please explain. It depends on how I name them when I go to
>court, huh?
Well, allow me quote you...its only a few lines up:
"And yeah, when I file for the order, I'll name the store owner and
his goons."
>
>> >That's a straw man you
>> >ignoramuses keep coming up with, because you have no clue what a
>> >lawsuit actually is. It's a settlement of two claims; I'm claiming I
>> >have a right to be on the sidewalk; he's claiming (if he's really
>> >stupid) a right to drive me off the corner. We can't both be right, can
>> >we?
>>
>> Of course not.
>
>And yet, by "laugh(ing) me out of court," the judge would be saying
>just that.
He would be saying that the store owner can't violate the first
amendment and the state didn't.
>>
>> >So, where does Canyon (and you and Marty McFly, apparently) get this
>> >idea that a judge will "laugh me out of court" in such a circumstance?
>> >Please cite the legal basis for such a ridiculous claim.
>>
>> Because the store owner didn't violate the first amendment.
>>
>No, you idiot. But the JUDGE would, if he "laughs me out of court."
The judge didn't remove you from the sidewalk nor is he preventing you
from being on the sidewalk so he didn't violate the First.
>Jesus, this is so basic. I feel like I'm teaching civics to the kids on
>the short bus...
Try facing them instead of doing from the last seat.
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
You have to be the densest motherfucker in the history of Usenet.
I have the right to be there. (You said it yourself.)
The store owner does NOT have the right to run me off. (I'm pretty sure
we can agree on that, right?)
So, if he runs me off the sidewalk, I have several options. I can call
the cops, for example. I can hire my own goons to act as bodyguards.
Or, if it's late in the day, and I'm not coming back until next week, I
can haul the guy into court and get a judge to tell him not to do it
again.
What is fascinating is, you admit I have a right to be there, and there
is no way anyone could ever claim the store owner has a right to run me
off. And I know you would have no problem with me calling the cops and
having the guy arrested.
So what we have is this; we have the cops arresting the guy, based
largely on the fact that I have a First Amendment right to be there. I
can have bodyguards physically stop the store owner from removing me,
based largely on the fact that I have a First Amendment right to be
there. Yet, mysteriously, if I choose to handle it through the courts,
with a judge, though it's roughly the same thing, you guys give it some
extra special importance and say it's impossible. That's such bullshit,
Jeffrey, and it demonstrates yet again why you Canyon and McFly are
like the Moe, Larry and Curly of Usenet.
MikeSoja
>You have to be the densest motherfucker in the history of Usenet.
>I have the right to be there. (You said it yourself.)
>The store owner does NOT have the right to run me off. (I'm pretty sure
>we can agree on that, right?)
>So, if he runs me off the sidewalk, I have several options. I can call
>the cops, for example. I can hire my own goons to act as bodyguards.
>Or, if it's late in the day, and I'm not coming back until next week, I
>can haul the guy into court and get a judge to tell him not to do it
>again.
>What is fascinating is, you admit I have a right to be there, and there
>is no way anyone could ever claim the store owner has a right to run me
>off. And I know you would have no problem with me calling the cops and
>having the guy arrested.
>So what we have is this; we have the cops arresting the guy, based
>largely on the fact that I have a First Amendment right to be there. I
Hate to break this to you, stupid Milty, but the First Amendment
isn't the controlling legal authority when it comes to where you can
and cannot freely go. (Of course, to all the fucking morons like
Milty who wish they had a government official on call every morning
to read 'em the statute pertaining to crossing the street and then
to hold their little hands when it was ruled safe and/or appropriate
to cross, it's probably as good as it's likely to get until the
slavering hordes make Koran memorization de rigueur.)
To put not too fine a point on it, Milty, you don't have a *right*
to your spot on the street corner. If someone else shows up first
and takes "your" spot and doesn't feel like relinquishing it,
there's nothing that you can morally or legally do about it.
Your gibbering about your rights in the context you've dreamed up is
nonsense. As usual.
Mike Soja
milt....@gmail.com
MikeSoja wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2006 18:32:06 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>
> >You have to be the densest motherfucker in the history of Usenet.
> >I have the right to be there. (You said it yourself.)
> >The store owner does NOT have the right to run me off. (I'm pretty sure
> >we can agree on that, right?)
>
> >So, if he runs me off the sidewalk, I have several options. I can call
> >the cops, for example. I can hire my own goons to act as bodyguards.
> >Or, if it's late in the day, and I'm not coming back until next week, I
> >can haul the guy into court and get a judge to tell him not to do it
> >again.
>
> >What is fascinating is, you admit I have a right to be there, and there
> >is no way anyone could ever claim the store owner has a right to run me
> >off. And I know you would have no problem with me calling the cops and
> >having the guy arrested.
>
> >So what we have is this; we have the cops arresting the guy, based
> >largely on the fact that I have a First Amendment right to be there. I
>
> Hate to break this to you, stupid Milty, but the First Amendment
> isn't the controlling legal authority when it comes to where you can
> and cannot freely go.
I never said it was. EVER.
The rest of your straw man is, therefore deleted, you stupid fuck.
MikeSoja
>MikeSoja wrote:
You're stupidly lying, Milty. Read the sentence to which I was
responding. It's right there. You said, "I have a First Amendment
right to be there." Now, when I tell you the First Amendment isn't
the controlling authority on such things, you claim you never said
it was?
>The rest of your straw man is, therefore deleted, you stupid fuck.
You would have done better to snip what you did address and address
what you snipped, idiot.
Mike Soja
milt....@gmail.com
You stupid fuck.
The First Amendment is the SOLE reason I can go to court and get an
order against him. So I'm right.
You throw about a non-sequiter like "controlling authority," which has
no meaning here, and then claim I used the term, and not you? I think
you're thinking of the term "controlling legal authority," a term first
used by Al Gore and excoriated by the right as being meaningless for
quite some time. However, it was used in a different context. In this
case, it has no meaning, kind of like saying I can't stand on a street
corner, because I have no "deed in trust" in the property...
How the fuck stupid are you, you asshole?
>
> >The rest of your straw man is, therefore deleted, you stupid fuck.
>
> You would have done better to snip what you did address and address
> what you snipped, idiot.
>
Fuckwit. You think you said something worth reading.
You were, as usual, wrong.
>
> Mike Soja
MikeSoja
>MikeSoja wrote:
>> >MikeSoja wrote:
>You stupid fuck.
No, Milty moron, you can go to court soley because the person
committed some crime against you, either harassment or assault or
kidnapping, depending on exactly what he did to remove you from your
precious corner.
If the man just stood there and yelled in your stupid, ugly yap, I
doubt you could do much about it.
>You throw about a non-sequiter like "controlling authority," which has
>no meaning here, and then claim I used the term, and not you?
Listen, Milt, I know you're a fucking moron and all, but surely you
can comprehend the difference between claiming you used a phrase in
a sentence and using the phrase to describe your stupidity. I
didn't say you used the phrase "controlling authority". I used the
phrase to more fully describe your idiotic assertions.
When you assert (moronically) that you "have a First Amendment right
to be there", you are asserting that the First Amendment is the
controlling legal authority in the matter. Comprehendé, you idiot?
Also, moron, it's "non sequitur", not "non-sequiter".
> I think
>you're thinking of the term "controlling legal authority," a term first
You "think"??? Look above to the sentence beginning "Hate to break
this to you, stupid Milty", and see why I call you "stupid Milty".
>used by Al Gore and excoriated by the right as being meaningless for
>quite some time.
You're lying. Gore wasn't "excoriated" for being "meaningless". He
was condemned for being duplicitous, and for flaunting his ability
to play his fund raising games at the edge of the law.
> However, it was used in a different context. In this
>case, it has no meaning, kind of like saying I can't stand on a street
>corner, because I have no "deed in trust" in the property...
You don't have *the right* to stand on the corner, moron, because
you indeed do not have a deed in trust.
You have the right to *try* to stand on the corner, but that right
is inherent in "freedom", and is neither granted nor usurped by any
piece of paper, least of all the Constitution's First Amendment.
Mike Soja
milt....@gmail.com
All of you are so fucking ignorant, one has to wonder why you spend so
much time in political chat rooms.
There IS NO CRIME if I have no right to be there in the first
place!!!!!!!!!!!
What part of this are you not getting. If I do the same thing on your
front lawn, there can be no harassment or assault for physically
removing me, depending on the level of force and the jurisdiction in
question.
In order for me to have you charged with a crime, even (which I chose
not to do in this case), I must have the right to be there. That comes
from the First Amendment.
>
> If the man just stood there and yelled in your stupid, ugly yap, I
> doubt you could do much about it.
Actually, that would depend on the statutes in that state/town.
>
> >You throw about a non-sequiter like "controlling authority," which has
> >no meaning here, and then claim I used the term, and not you?
>
> Listen, Milt, I know you're a fucking moron and all, but surely you
> can comprehend the difference between claiming you used a phrase in
> a sentence and using the phrase to describe your stupidity. I
> didn't say you used the phrase "controlling authority". I used the
> phrase to more fully describe your idiotic assertions.
And it's a non-sequiter. I would also ask you to read your own words:
> >> You're stupidly lying, Milty. Read the sentence to which I was
> >> responding. It's right there. You said, "I have a First Amendment
> >> right to be there." Now, when I tell you the First Amendment isn't
> >> the controlling authority on such things, you claim you never said
> >> it was?
Hmmm... sure looks like you're claiming I said the First Amendment was
"the controlling authority"...
I did not say that, because that phrase has no meaning in this context.
Dumbass doesn't even understand what he himself wrote.
>
> When you assert (moronically) that you "have a First Amendment right
> to be there", you are asserting that the First Amendment is the
> controlling legal authority in the matter. Comprehendé, you idiot?
I comprende that you're a fucktard.
The phrase "controlling legal authority" has NO MEANING in this
context. Why do you keep repeating it? Why don't you go look up what it
means and get back to us.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
You can, but you certainly can't don't have a first amendment claim
against anyone. Are you finally coming to that conclusion?
>What is fascinating is, you admit I have a right to be there, and there
>is no way anyone could ever claim the store owner has a right to run me
>off. And I know you would have no problem with me calling the cops and
>having the guy arrested.
Its so easy when you finally calm down and pay attention isn't it?
>So what we have is this; we have the cops arresting the guy, based
>largely on the fact that I have a First Amendment right to be there. I
>can have bodyguards physically stop the store owner from removing me,
>based largely on the fact that I have a First Amendment right to be
>there.
Only protection from the government removing you Milt, not the store
owner.
>Yet, mysteriously, if I choose to handle it through the courts,
>with a judge, though it's roughly the same thing, you guys give it some
>extra special importance and say it's impossible. That's such bullshit,
>Jeffrey, and it demonstrates yet again why you Canyon and McFly are
>like the Moe, Larry and Curly of Usenet.
Certainly you can bring foward a case. I brought one forward where
someone claimed first amendment protection and was shot down. Surely
you saw it?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>MikeSoja wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2006 17:05:21 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>>
>> >MikeSoja wrote:
>>
>> >> On 25 Feb 2006 07:42:39 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>>
>> >> >MikeSoja wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On 24 Feb 2006 18:32:06 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>>
>> >> >> >You have to be the densest motherfucker in the history of Usenet.
>> >> >> >I have the right to be there. (You said it yourself.)
>> >> >> >The store owner does NOT have the right to run me off. (I'm pretty=
> sure
>> >> >> >we can agree on that, right?)
>>
>> >> >> >So, if he runs me off the sidewalk, I have several options. I can =
>call
>> >> >> >the cops, for example. I can hire my own goons to act as bodyguard=
>s=2E
>> >> >> >Or, if it's late in the day, and I'm not coming back until next we=
>ek, I
>> >> >> >can haul the guy into court and get a judge to tell him not to do =
>it
>> >> >> >again.
>>
>> >> >> >What is fascinating is, you admit I have a right to be there, and =
>there
>> >> >> >is no way anyone could ever claim the store owner has a right to r=
>un me
>> >> >> >off. And I know you would have no problem with me calling the cops=
> and
>> >> >> >having the guy arrested.
>>
>> >> >> >So what we have is this; we have the cops arresting the guy, based
>> >> >> >largely on the fact that I have a First Amendment right to be ther=
>e=2E I
>>
>> >> >> Hate to break this to you, stupid Milty, but the First Amendment
>> >> >> isn't the controlling legal authority when it comes to where you can
>> >> >> and cannot freely go.
>>
>> >> >I never said it was. EVER.
>>
>> >> You're stupidly lying, Milty. Read the sentence to which I was
>> >> responding. It's right there. You said, "I have a First Amendment
>> >> right to be there." Now, when I tell you the First Amendment isn't
>> >> the controlling authority on such things, you claim you never said
>> >> it was?
>>
>> >You stupid fuck.
>>
>> >The First Amendment is the SOLE reason I can go to court and get an
>> >order against him. So I'm right.
>>
>> No, Milty moron, you can go to court soley because the person
>> committed some crime against you, either harassment or assault or
>> kidnapping, depending on exactly what he did to remove you from your
>> precious corner.
>
>All of you are so fucking ignorant, one has to wonder why you spend so
>much time in political chat rooms.
>
>There IS NO CRIME if I have no right to be there in the first
>place!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>What part of this are you not getting. If I do the same thing on your
>front lawn, there can be no harassment or assault for physically
>removing me, depending on the level of force and the jurisdiction in
>question.
Now in a previous thread you said you had the right to shoot me Milt.
Which is it?
>
>In order for me to have you charged with a crime, even (which I chose
>not to do in this case), I must have the right to be there. That comes
>from the First Amendment.
Rights don't come from the government Milt.
>
>>
>> If the man just stood there and yelled in your stupid, ugly yap, I
>> doubt you could do much about it.
>
>Actually, that would depend on the statutes in that state/town.
>>
>> >You throw about a non-sequiter like "controlling authority," which has
>> >no meaning here, and then claim I used the term, and not you?
>>
>> Listen, Milt, I know you're a fucking moron and all, but surely you
>> can comprehend the difference between claiming you used a phrase in
>> a sentence and using the phrase to describe your stupidity. I
>> didn't say you used the phrase "controlling authority". I used the
>> phrase to more fully describe your idiotic assertions.
>
>And it's a non-sequiter. I would also ask you to read your own words:
>
>> >> You're stupidly lying, Milty. Read the sentence to which I was
>> >> responding. It's right there. You said, "I have a First Amendment
>> >> right to be there." Now, when I tell you the First Amendment isn't
>> >> the controlling authority on such things, you claim you never said
>> >> it was?
>
>Hmmm... sure looks like you're claiming I said the First Amendment was
>"the controlling authority"...
>
>I did not say that, because that phrase has no meaning in this context.
>
>Dumbass doesn't even understand what he himself wrote.
>>
>> When you assert (moronically) that you "have a First Amendment right
>> to be there", you are asserting that the First Amendment is the
>> controlling legal authority in the matter. Comprehend=E9, you idiot?
>
>I comprende that you're a fucktard.
>
>The phrase "controlling legal authority" has NO MEANING in this
>context. Why do you keep repeating it? Why don't you go look up what it
>means and get back to us.
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
Jesus, Jeffrey, if that's the best you can come up with...
I never said they did.
How many straw men ya got? You have to be running out...
milt....@gmail.com
Please tell me you're just kidding. Even you can't be this stupid.
>
> >What is fascinating is, you admit I have a right to be there, and there
> >is no way anyone could ever claim the store owner has a right to run me
> >off. And I know you would have no problem with me calling the cops and
> >having the guy arrested.
>
> Its so easy when you finally calm down and pay attention isn't it?
>
> >So what we have is this; we have the cops arresting the guy, based
> >largely on the fact that I have a First Amendment right to be there. I
> >can have bodyguards physically stop the store owner from removing me,
> >based largely on the fact that I have a First Amendment right to be
> >there.
>
> Only protection from the government removing you Milt, not the store
> owner.
Okay, now you MUST be kidding me.
You are simply incapable of understanding this issue. The fact that the
government, in the form of a court, pretty much gives the store owner
permission to remove you at will, when it has a chance to do just the
opposite, is essentially creating a law that infringes on your right to
free speech.
Your life must be completely devoid of laughter, Jeffrey. I'd explain
why, but you wouldn't understand it.
> >Yet, mysteriously, if I choose to handle it through the courts,
> >with a judge, though it's roughly the same thing, you guys give it some
> >extra special importance and say it's impossible. That's such bullshit,
> >Jeffrey, and it demonstrates yet again why you Canyon and McFly are
> >like the Moe, Larry and Curly of Usenet.
>
> Certainly you can bring foward a case. I brought one forward where
> someone claimed first amendment protection and was shot down. Surely
> you saw it?
>
You're a lying sack of shit, Jeffrey. I posted the following (uncut) on
May 17, 2004.
Steve Canyon wrote:
> Milt says,"If you're standing on the corner, legally handing
> out flyers, speaking out against the store in front of which you're
> standing, and the owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big
> guys remove you from in front of his building, you have the basis for
> a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
> government was involved."
Yup.
> Then Milt says, "If someone does something to violate your right to
> free speech -- REALLY violate it, not just cancel a contract or refuse
> to spend money to put out your album, you take them to court.
Yup.
> Milt goes on to say, ""Now, the protester sues in court, and asserts
> that he has a First Amendment right to be on the public sidewalk
> handing out fliers and that the store owner's action prevented him
> from exercising his rights.
Yup.
> Then Milt changes his mind
There is no change of mind here...
> and says, "BUT, if I'm on a public sidewalk
> legally, and you take my shit away nd drive me off the sidewalk, I do
> have a claim. And I have a claim because I'm on a PUBLIC sidewalk. And
> when I sue, my First Amendment claim won't be against YOU; it'll be
> against the state, to force them to protect my First Amendment
> rights."
Exactly. You URMs simply cannot read. There's no contradiction in any
of
the above. You're just a moron...
> Now Milt adds a little back peddle when he says, "No, I didn't use the
> word "against". See how you have to keep inserting words into the
> argument just to make your argument "valid"? I said I have a First
> Amendment based lawsuit. I am going to take the guy to court and
> demand that the judge "not abridge" my First Amendment rights and stop
> this guy."
Exactly.
> Now Milt back peddles in high gear by saying "I never said I was SUING
> the government."
I'm not. I'm taking the store owner to court.
> .and all during this time, Milt has seen and is in denial about the
> following SCOTUS ruling:
> "It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee
> of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> federal or state. Thus, while statutory or
> common law may in some situations extend protection or provide
> redress against a private corporation or person who seeks to abridge
> the free expression of others, no such protection or redress is
> provided by the Constitution itself." --U.S. Supreme Court
> HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&...
You mean the case above, which SUPPORTS me, and doesn't contradict me?
WHO is in denial?
Meanwhile, read these:
... You're complete and utter idiots...
(Sarcasm alert!)
STOP MAKING SENSE: Sidewalk Stories
http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2004/04/29/sense.html
Why can't we resolve this free-speech issue for good?
By Jeremy Parker
(...)
The nonunion Venetian followed the MGM Grand playbook when it faced
its own Culinary protests as it was set to open in 1999. This time,
despite entreaties by the Venetian to make trespassing arrests, Metro
police went to District Attorney Stewart Bell, who told them that the
sidewalks could not be privately controlled. And so the Venetian went
to court to have its claim to the sidewalks upheld.
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals saw it differently. In 2001,
the court ruled that "the public streets and sidewalks located within
the Las Vegas Resort District are public fora" and that "by dedicating
the property to public use, the owner ... can no longer claim the
authority to bar people from using the property because he or she
disagrees with the content of their speech."
(WAIT!! What's that??? The Ninth Circuit ruled that the OWNER could no
longer do that? But... But... Isn't the OWNER a private party?? How IS
that POSSIBLE??)
Then there's the Fremont Street Experience. Despite being inaugurated
as Las Vegas' "town square" and designated a public park (essentially
a gimmick to receive extra public funding), the FSE tried to ban
solicitations, distribution of literature, demonstrations-any kind of
speech beyond talking to your companion as you hop from casino to
casino. The courts found that unconstitutional, too, but not before
FSE security clamped down on anti-nuclear activists and
police-brutality pamphleteers, to say nothing of the medical-marijuana
ballot petitioners who were detained by Metro and threatened with
arrest if they returned.
(WHAT is that? The courts told a PRIVATE CORPORATION it couldn't stop
people from exercising their First Amendment rights? That's IMPOSSIBLE
according to the whacks in this thread!)
(...)
In January 2002, antiwar student activists handing out fliers in front
of the Boardwalk Casino were met by casino security, who threatened to
handcuff and remove them from the sidewalk-and, according to some
reports, said they'd do the same to the attorney who came to their
defense. (In this case, it was Metro who backed security off.)
(WHAT? You mean the POLICE forced the PRIVATE SECURITY people to back
off?? How IS that POSSIBLE??)
Culminating in the street-preacher shenanigans earlier this month.
Pastor Tom Griner was merely preaching outside Bellagio when he was
cited for obstructing the sidewalk. Undersheriff Doug Gillespie
explained to the Review-Journal that pamphleteers, practically by
their very nature, "deny others passage along a public right of way."
(The sidewalk in front of Bellagio is about 25 feet wide.) A week
later, on the Venetian sidewalk, Griner and fellow preacher Jim Webber
faced hostile casino security and were told by Metro officers: "This
is basically their house ... for any reason at all, they want to evict
someone out of their house, they can do that."
In many cases, the only reason the demonstrations were left alone was
the cavalry-like appearance of Allen Lichtenstein and Gary Peck of the
American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. It's sad when the fate of
the rule of law relies on the presence of one or two people to explain
the rules not just to private security, but to the police.
According to the R-J, Metro officers working the Strip will soon
distribute pamphlets to demonstrators that explain their rights.
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
-----------------------
Main Street Dispute Shows Need for Respect
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/global_user_elements/printpage.cfm?...
By Karen Hunt
(...)
I'm not the only one who tries to respect other religions. Many
students listen respectfully to various religious groups on campus,
like when the Campus Crusade for Christ handed out fliers and held the
"Do You Agree with Jesse?" lecture in spring 2001, or when The LDS
Institute of Religion hands out invitations to social events.
More than three years ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints Church and city officials wrote a contract that gave the church
the right to regulate smoking, speech and activities on the land. The
contract also made an important stipulation. It said that if any part
of the original contract was ever found unconstitutional, the rest of
the contract would stand as it is. The Salt Lake Tribune even wrote a
house editorial supporting the sale to the church, but what it now
criticizes is that the control of the easement was written into the
contract at the last minute and not open to public scrutiny.
Now, more than three years later, the controversy is roaring again as
a result of a recent ruling by three judges from the U.S. 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals in Denver, Colo. The court ruled that the plaza is a
public easement and restrictions on free speech on the plaza's
sidewalks are unconstitutional. The LDS Church is appealing the
decision.
(WHAT? ANOTHER Court told ANOTHER "private entity" (this time, a
church) not to interfere with people exercising their constitutional
rights? According to the Usenet resident morons, that would be
impossible...)
The recent ruling overturned a prior decision that the collection of
fountains, reflecting pools, plants and statues in downtown Salt Lake
City had turned a public sidewalk into a private garden. That decision
was made by U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart.
(...)
----------------------
Court limits handbilling, but splits on property rights
http://billstclair.com/blog/vin/010524.html
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 24, 2001
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Court limits handbilling, but splits on property rights
The Nevada state Supreme Court ruled 5-1 on May 17 that The Mirage and
Treasure Island casinos in Las Vegas are entitled to restrict the
distribution of sexually oriented handbills on the private sidewalks
in front of their establishments, even though the sidewalks are used
by the public.
Reflecting the difficulty of navigating a course between the competing
rights of private property and free expression, however, Justice Bob
Rose dissented, arguing public thoroughfares are indeed public forums
deserving of full first Amendment protection ... while even two of the
concurring justices (Miriam Shearing and Chief Justice Bill Maupin)
disagreed on why the leafletting in question can be banned.
(They WHAT! They ruled that "public thoroughfares are indeed public
forums deserving of full first Amendment protection."!!!! How IS that
possible?? Haven't they consulted with the Usenet Morons in
Residence?)
In his concurrence, Maupin noted that the public forum question was
resolved by U.S. District Judge Philip Pro in April of 1999. Rejecting
a request from The Venetian to bar union activists from picketing on
its privately owned sidewalk, Judge Pro ruled in that case "Since the
sidewalk performs an essential public function, the Venetian does not
have the right to exclude individuals from the sidewalk based upon
permissible exercises of their right to expression."
(OMG!! The Venetian -- A PRIVATE ENTITY, no less! -- does not have the
right to exclude individuals from the sidewalk "based upon permissible
exercises of their right to expression." That's IMPOSSIBLE!!)
Thus, Judges Maupin and Shearing joined in Thursday' majority opinion
not because they doubt the sidewalks are a public forum, but because
(in Justice Maupin's words) "Commercial speech may be suppressed even
where, as here, it is conducted in a traditional public forum. The
handbills in this case advertise in-room erotic dancing with
suggestive slogans. As such, they appear to solicit offers of illegal
prostitution. Accordingly, I would hold that the appellants'
commercial speech is unprotected by the First Amendment."
(Hmm... interesting... Betcha Canyon and the other resident morons
won't know what that means. It means that, as long as the handbills
aren't "dirty," private parties can do nothing about running them off
the public sidewalk.)
(For the record, I disagree with that part of the decision. As long as
the handbills are not "obscene" by community standards, and as long as
they're not handing them to minors, they should be as free to hand
them out as Mormons are to hand out tracts...)
------------------
Told you so
http://www.lvrj.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2002/Jan-08-Tue-...
As my Thursday column on Clark County's wrongheaded approach to
private sidewalks on the Strip was still languishing on coffee tables
and in news racks, a perfect test case was developing on the
boulevard.
A handful of UNLV peace activists had elected to stand on the sidewalk
outside the Boardwalk and pass out leaflets. The small fliers
encouraged passers-by to call their representatives in Congress and
urge them to focus on diplomacy, rather than war, in Afghanistan.
Of course, security guards at the Boardwalk tried to get the activists
to leave. It wouldn't do to have some radicals ruffle customers who
might venture into a building heretofore known primarily as the home
of the Surf Buffet and the joint that sits on land MGM Mirage will
someday develop into a casino.
Doubtless the fracas let the American Civil Liberties Union breathe a
sigh of relief. At last, a sidewalk case that centers upon something
other than the right to distribute sexually explicit handbills. It's
not that such publications don't enjoy free-speech protections. But
for years, the ACLU has been warning that if casino muscle can silence
smut peddlers, it can silence anyone.
Allen Lichtenstein, the ACLU's general counsel, went to the scene. He
told the security guards that, under a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruling, if a sidewalk functions as a public right-of-way,
free-speech protections apply. And that includes the right to pass out
fliers encouraging world peace. (This ritual must be repeated almost
monthly as most casinos couldn't care less about the rule of law if it
might prevent one gambler from tossing a coin into a slot machine.)
(WHAT DID HE SAY?? Free-Speech PROTECTIONS? You mean PRIVATE PARTIES
can be told to NOT stop folks from exercising their First Amendment
rights? Not according to the Usenet Resident Morons...)
But the Boardwalk came up with what can only be described as a truly
unique solution: Security guards threatened to handcuff Lichtenstein
as well as the demonstrators. You read that right: They threatened to
place into custody not only those constitutionally protected kids
whose crime was passing out leaflets encouraging an end to war, but
also the attorney who had arrived to tell them the law made such an
arrest impossible.
To be fair, the casino maintains there were no threats. Security
supervisor Bill Deeter told the Review-Journal he never threatened
anyone, and the Boardwalk's head of security, Nick Bacsak, says he
knows nothing of any threats. In response, Lichtenstein says simply,
"They're lying."
But instead of being cast into irons, Lichtenstein called police
himself. And the police told the Boardwalk that, unless the
demonstrators were harassing people or obstructing the sidewalk, they
had a right to pass out fliers.
(WHAT?? You mean the POLICE -- who work for the GOVERNMENT -- told a
PRIVATE PARTY to cease and desist? Didn't they consult the Usnet
Resident Morons before they did that?)
The Boardwalk unintentionally illustrates a point it behooves us not
to miss: Those who insist on suppressing unpopular speech on Strip
sidewalks target not just people handing out sexually explicit fliers,
but anyone they see as a nuisance. They envision a Las
Vegas-as-Disneyland where happy gamblers skip from casino to casino,
happily tossing cash onto tables with wild abandon, never encountering
anything that might suggest all is not right with the world.
And much like Disneyland, it's not real.
The trouble with those who insist on the right to exclude anyone they
don't like from the public thoroughfares on the Strip -- occasionally
under the false claim that they are private property -- is the reality
that those without property would have no right to make their voices
heard. Those peace demonstrators don't have the money to buy Strip
frontage, nor advertising time on television, nor space in the
Review-Journal. They don't have, as I do, a thrice-weekly column with
which to nag the powers-that-be. Their last resort is the public
square.
Casinos and their puppets in government have often characterized this
as a battle between smut peddlers and the forces of righteousness, who
just want good, family fun. But the peace demonstrators showed free
speech on the Strip is about more than that -- it's also about the
rights of unions to picket. It's about the right of a person who feels
he was mistreated by a car dealer to protest in front of the
dealership with a big sign warning others about lemons. It's about the
rights of pro-lifers to march in front of a clinic to air their views.
And it's about the homeless person whose last recourse is to stand on
the sidewalk along a freeway off ramp with a sign asking for change.
Far from being outraged at the Boardwalk's heavy-handed tactics, we
should be grateful. The bush-league fascism underscores an important
civics lesson for everyone.
(Everyone except the Usenet Resident Morons...)
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist.
--------------------
Hotel Sidewalk Is Public Forum Under First Amendment-Court
http://www.metnews.com/articles/vene0713.htm
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer/Appellate Courts
The sidewalk in front of the Venetian Casino Resort on the Las Vegas
Strip, constructed privately by the hotel to replace a public sidewalk
that existed on the site when it housed the old Sands hotel, is a
public forum for First Amendment purposes, the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.
The divided panel handed a victory to local unions which have picketed
the non-union hotel, local authorities who have refused to interfere
with the picketing, and the ACLU of Nevada.
The Venetian argued that the sidewalk is not a public forum, citing
U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding pedestrian malls and enclosed
shopping centers. But Judge Procter Hug Jr., joined by Chief Judge
Mary M. Schroeder, said the cases were distinguishable.
"The historically public character of the Venetian's sidewalk, the
sidewalk's continued use by the general public, the fact that the
sidewalk is connected to and virtually indistinguishable from the
public sidewalks to its north and south, and the dedication of the
sidewalk to public use all serve to distinguish this case from the two
Supreme Court cases...," Hug wrote.
Demonstration Permit
The Venetian sued Clark County, its district attorney, and the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in March 1999 after about 1,300
members and supporters of the culinary workers and other unions
picketed the newly opened facility pursuant to a county-issued
demonstration permit.
The hotel claimed the county was violating its property rights by
issuing the permit, and that the police had a mandatory duty to
exclude the demonstrators from the sidewalk. The police responded that
they had relied on the district attorney's advice that the
demonstrators had a right to picket, and the ACLU and the unions
intervened in support of the defendants.
U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, a decision the Court of Appeals affirmed by
yesterday's ruling.
Hug cited a recorded agreement between the Venetian and the Nevada
Department of Transportation under which the hotel was permitted to
replace the existing public right-of-way by constructing "a private
sidewalk connecting to public sidewalks on either side of its
property."
The sidewalk was required to "have a minimum width of ten feet" and to
"satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act for the purpose of
providing unobstructed pedestrian access."
The agreement, Hug said, imposes "a recorded servitude on this parcel
of private property upon which the replacement sidewalk is located
that the Venetian and its successors and assigns dedicate to public
use to provide unobstructed pedestrian access on that sidewalk."
Unlike the property owners in the U.S. Supreme Court cases, Hug said,
the Venetian wasn't free to exclude the public from passing across its
property.
(What!!??? Didn't they consult with Canyon, Linder and Butt Boy before
issuing this ruling?? According to those idiots, under no circumtances
could the court stop the Venetian, which is a PRIVATE COMPANY, from
abridging people's free speech rights. Gosh, either the judges are
wrong, or the Usenet Resident Morons are... which would you put your
money on...)
(...)
--------------
This is one of the more interesting ones...
Sidewalk Counseling: Still a Constitutional Right
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/culsidewalkcouns.html
Walter Weber
Free Speech Advocates
<...>
Is sidewalk counseling a constitutional right?
Yes. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the
"freedom of speech." The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that
peaceful communication -such as spoken words, display of a sign, and
leafleting-are all protected forms of free speech, especially in
public places like sidewalks and parks.
What if somebody tells me to "shut up" or go away?
The right to free speech in public places does not depend upon the
consent of the listeners. Otherwise hecklers could silence any
unpopular speaker. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that
speech cannot be censored simply because the speaker's message
irritates or offends a listener. In fact, the Supreme Court has even
mentioned the phrase, "Abortion is Murder," as an example of free
speech.
(WHAT!?? You mean the SUPREME COURT has "consistently ruled" that free
speech cannot be censored by ANYONE?? Jeez... even the anti-choicers
don't agree with the Usenet Resident Morons...)
---------------------
Free Speech in Shopping Malls
http://www.aclu-em.org/newsletter/1998liberties/november1998/speechin...
By Deborah Jacobs
Executive Director, ACLU-EM
During the first 175 years of the United States of America's
existence, while it was not always safe to communicate unpopular
views, the exercise of the First Amendment's right to freedom of
speech was relatively easy and cheap. Any individual or group of
citizens could simply print up a flyer and directly communicate their
views to others by distributing leaflets or holding up a poster or a
banner on the town square or on a sidewalk in the city center. But
beginning in the 1950's private shopping centers began to replace town
squares, downtowns and other public areas where citizens gathered.
The number of shopping centers in the United States grew from under
100 in 1950 to 30,641 in 1987, and that number has only increased. In
most American communities, shopping centers have virtually all of the
functions of a public gathering place; they host numerous public and
private services, including banks, movies, restaurants, discotheques,
parking facilities, post offices, reference libraries and even
churches. Moreover, mall owners often encourage the public to
congregate for events unrelated to shopping or commerce, such as art
exhibits, amusement park rides and walking clubs, thus assuming an
expanded role as the new downtown, where the public shops, socializes
and participates in community debate.
Nonetheless, shopping center owners have generally been resistant to
allowing groups and individuals to engage in peaceful free speech
activities on their premises. Leafletters and protestors have been
harassed, ejected and even arrested for conduct that would have been
constitutionally protected had it occurred on a public sidewalk, park
or street. And, to make matters worse, activists cannot access people
going into malls from city sidewalks because malls are insulated by
their own parking lots.
To date, the highest courts in seven states have held that citizens
retain their free speech rights in shopping centers.
(WHAT WAS THAT?? Courts in SEVEN STATES have ruled that judges have
the power to do WHAT?? Didn't they consult with the Usenet Resident
Morons before making that decision? What good is a law school
education when you have the URMs to guide you?)
While some mall owners claim that activists already have access to
traditional public forums, the courts have recognized that one's
ability to reach the public is very limited if one is confined to
public property on which the public rarely gathers in significant
numbers. In some states, support is growing for legislation
guaranteeing with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions free
speech rights in common areas of shopping malls.
The need for access to shopping malls to conduct First Amendment
activities most frequently arises for people gathering signatures for
initiative petitions. The right to petition the government is a
cornerstone of the American democratic system.
In Blue Ridge Shopping Center v. Schleininger, the Missouri Supreme
Court held that peaceful picketing carried on in a location generally
open to the public is, absent other factors involving the purpose or
manner of the picketing, protected by the First Amendment.
(The Missouri Supreme Court said that? Those legal illiterates! Didn't
they know to contact the URMs??)
In Blue Ridge, which involved Teamsters picketing in front of a
Montgomery Ward store, the court ruled that "Ownership does not always
mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up
his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights
become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of
those who use it."
(Wow! And that ruling concerning a PRIVATE PARTY! How could they??!!)
(...)
---------------------------
Free Speech and the State Action Requirement
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstamstatea...
The issue: Does the First Amendment reach speech restrictions imposed
in company towns? Does it apply to restrictions on speech in shopping
centers?
Introduction
As a general rule, the owner of private property is free to restrict
expressive activitites of others on the property. You are under no
First Amendment obligation to admit people into your living room and
then listen to them blow off about any topic of their choice.
Similarly, an owner of a restaurant has no duty to allow persons who
dislike the food she serves into the restaurant so the person can
annoy customers or discourage others from eating there.
Yet, almost every rule as its exceptions, and this rule is no
exception to that rule. In 1946, the Court considered the issue of
the First Amendment's applicability in Chickasaw, Alabama--a company
town owned lock, stock, and barrel by Gulf Shipbuilding. A Jehovah's
Witness came to Chicasaw and began distributing religious literature
on a street corner. She was told to stop her activity. She refused,
and was tried and convicted of trespass. The Court reversed her
conviction, concluding that Chicasaw was the functional equivalent of
a municipality, the residents of Chicasaw citizens of Alabama, and
that the First Amendment fully applied to expressive activities on the
company-owned sidewalks and streets of the town.
(Hmmm... The Court actually told the PRIVATE ENTITY that owned a
company town to stop harrassing people who were handing out fliers on
public sidewalks? Hmmm... what's wrong with them...)
In 1968, at the height of the liberal Warren Court, the rule in Marsh
was extended in Logan Valley to protect expressive activity in the
parking lot of a shopping center. The Court reasoned that shopping
centers today function much like the downtown business districts of
previous eras. Today, many people never visits central business
districts and if they are to be reached at all, it is only in the
suburban shopping complex.
(In other words, a PRIVATE entity was told that they could NOT STOP
folks who were legally exercising their First Amendment rights. )
In 1976, in Hudgens v NLRB, the Court reversed course and overruled
Logan Valley. The Court noted that in a case decided in 1972 it had
limited Logan Valley to speech that related in some way to one of the
businesses in a shopping center, ruling in 1972 that there was no
First Amendment right to engage in anti-war leafletting at a large
suburban mall. The Court concluded that the rationale of Logan Valley
had been rejected in 1972, and now it was time to bury Logan Valley
altogether. The Court indicated, however, that the company-town
situation of Marsh remains one in which it will protect expressive
activities even though they take place on private property.
(Yes, that's right. They UPHELD a case in which the Court had ruled
that a COMPANY could not bother people who were exercising their First
Amendment rights. The SUPREME COURT! How could they do that? They
should have consulted the URMs!)
Hudgens has not been the end of the story. Several state supreme
courts have concluded that the free speech protections of their own
state constitutions protect the right of citizens to engage in
expressive activities in the public areas of shopping centers. Most
notable, perhaps, is the California Supreme Court's Pruneyard
decision. The Court found constitutional protection for high school
students who were soliciting signatures at a 65-store mall opposing a
U. N. resolution on "Zionism." The shopping center owner took the
case to the U. S. Supreme Court in 1980, arguing that the California
Supreme Court's decision amounted either to a violation of his First
Amendment rights or a taking of his private property. The U. S.
Supreme Court unanimously rejected both arguments.
(You mean -- GASP! -- The Supreme Court told a PRIVATE COMPANY not to
abridge a person's free speech rights? I'm SHOCKED!!!)
(...)
Testing Free Speech on the
Country Club Plaza
Law students test the applicability of the First Amendment to Kansas
City's Country Club Plaza. 3L Michael Smith (left) distributes
leaflets while 3L Page Bellamy (right)--with "Club sandwiches, not
seals" sign-- talks to a K. C. police officer in front of Alaskan Fur
store.
America's oldest (built in the 1920s) privately-owned shopping
district is in Kansas City. Called the Country Club Plaza, the
upscale shopping area includes dozens of stores and restaurants
occupying more than twenty square blocks in the heart of the city.
Yet title to the land underlying the sidewalks and streets of the
Country Club Plaza belongs to a private company. The area is jointly
policed by private security guards and city police.
After talking about Marsh, Logan Valley, and Hudgens, I often ask
students whether they think that the First Amendment would protect
expressive activity on the sidewalks and public areas of the Country
Club Plaza. At one time, the owner of the Plaza took the position
that it didn't. Private security guards would tell leafletters,
picketers, and other persons engaging in expressive activity to leave
or face arrest for trespass.
One year, three students told me after our class discussion that they
would like to test the constitutionality of the Plaza's policy of
prohibiting certain expressive activities. On a Saturday morning, the
three students and I travelled the few blocks from the Law School to
the Plaza and took up positions on the sidewalk in front of an Alaskan
Fur Store. The students had prepared leaflets describing inhumane
treatments of animals associated with the fur industry (such as
leg-hold traps) and a sign that said, "Club sandwiches, not seals."
They hoped--and fully expected-- to be arrested.
Within minutes after arriving at the store, the store owner told the
students that they had to leave. When they refused, he retreated to
the store, got on the phone, and called the Plaza's private security
force. Just at that moment however, a Kansas City police officer
chanced upon the scene. He asked to look at the leaflets. He looked
at the sign. He smiled. He told us that his father was the president
of Kansas City's Humane Society and he admired what the students were
doing. He told us of another fur store in town where we might want to
protest later. Then he went into the store and told the owner that the
students had a First Amendment right to do what they were doing.
(That cop should discuss this with the URMs, and he'd know better...)
Admitting defeat, we went off and had a few beers.
(How many beers will the URMs have now?)
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Really? When did you change your mind? Because just a few lines up
you said:
"...I must have the right to be there. That comes from the First
Amendment."
And then there was this one:
"But rights are not natural; they are conceived, acknowledged
and protected by the government. " -- Milt Shook.
>How many straw men ya got? You have to be running out...
What you refer to as "straw men" are simply your words.
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
The law is not "the government."
Which is one of the reasons why it's puzzling that the Bushies get away
with so much crime with impunity...
>
> And then there was this one:
>
> "But rights are not natural; they are conceived, acknowledged
> and protected by the government. " -- Milt Shook.
I see...
So the guy who first invented Coca Cola IS Coca Cola?
Henry Ford actually WAS a car, was he?
Bill Gates IS Windows?
>
> >How many straw men ya got? You have to be running out...
>
> What you refer to as "straw men" are simply your words.
>
No, Jeffrey. They're you, demonstrating your inability to comprehend
logic.
(note that I used the word "conceived," not "created")
2287 Dead
The Constitution is not a part of the government, Jeffy. Didn't you
know that?
>
>And then there was this one:
>
>"But rights are not natural; they are conceived, acknowledged
>and protected by the government. " -- Milt Shook.
They are acknowledged and protected by the government. They are
conceived by the people.
>
>>How many straw men ya got? You have to be running out...
>
>What you refer to as "straw men" are simply your words.
Which you utterly fail to understand.
>
>JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Did you see the case I posted in another thread Milt? I guess not.
Would you like me to post it again? It was very similar to your
scenario. I believe a school board member was denied access to school
board meetings and she claimed her 1st amendment rights were violated.
The court disagreed.
>Your life must be completely devoid of laughter, Jeffrey. I'd explain
>why, but you wouldn't understand it.
That's probably a true statement Milt since your ability to explain
anything is severely limited.
>> >Yet, mysteriously, if I choose to handle it through the courts,
>> >with a judge, though it's roughly the same thing, you guys give it some
>> >extra special importance and say it's impossible. That's such bullshit,
>> >Jeffrey, and it demonstrates yet again why you Canyon and McFly are
>> >like the Moe, Larry and Curly of Usenet.
>>
>> Certainly you can bring foward a case. I brought one forward where
>> someone claimed first amendment protection and was shot down. Surely
>> you saw it?
>>
>
>You're a lying sack of shit, Jeffrey. I posted the following (uncut) on
>May 17, 2004.
You're saying that I didn't post a case or that I was lying when I
asked you whether you saw it?
What are you talking about Milt? That doesn't support your case at
all. It may be a free speech issue but its not a first amendment
case. And really Milt, you were asked to cite a case, not an op-ed
about a case. Do you have the case number?
>
>Then there's the Fremont Street Experience. Despite being inaugurated
>as Las Vegas' "town square" and designated a public park (essentially
>a gimmick to receive extra public funding), the FSE tried to ban
>solicitations, distribution of literature, demonstrations-any kind of
>speech beyond talking to your companion as you hop from casino to
>casino. The courts found that unconstitutional, too, but not before
>FSE security clamped down on anti-nuclear activists and
>police-brutality pamphleteers, to say nothing of the medical-marijuana
>ballot petitioners who were detained by Metro and threatened with
>arrest if they returned.
>
>(WHAT is that? The courts told a PRIVATE CORPORATION it couldn't stop
>people from exercising their First Amendment rights? That's IMPOSSIBLE
>according to the whacks in this thread!)
Private corporation? What are you talking about Milt? It was the
city of Las Vegas that passed the ordinances that limited speech NOT a
private corporation as you claim.
Surely you read the opinion? It seems that you didn't. You're such
an idiot.
Allow me to post it for you, in part:
"In a successful bid to revive its decaying downtown, the City of Las
Vegas followed the lead of towns across the United States and turned
several blocks of its main downtown street into a publicly-owned
pedestrian mall, the Fremont Street Experience. Fearful of the
potential for disruption of merchants and customers, the City placed
significant restrictions upon First Amendment activities in the
Fremont Street Experience. After running afoul of these restrictions,
the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada ("ACLU") and others
(jointly "the Plaintiffs") brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
suit. The Plaintiffs appeal the district court's determination that
the mall is a nonpublic forum, and its ruling that City ordinances
restricting soliciting and tabling were constitutional. The City of
Las Vegas cross-appeals the district court's determination that City
ordinances limiting leafleting and vending were unconstitutional. We
affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Because the Fremont
Street Experience unmistakably possesses the characteristics of a
traditional public forum, we reverse the district court's conclusion
that it is a nonpublic forum. Recognizing that "the First Amendment .
. . must deal with new problems in a changing world," Cinevision Corp.
v. City of Burbank, 745 F.2d 560, 566 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Bd. of
Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 885, 73 L. Ed. 2d 435, 102 S. Ct. 2799
(1982)), we hold that the Fremont Street Experience is a public forum.
As a consequence, the restrictions on First Amendment activities must
be scrutinized under a strict standard of review in order to protect
adequately the right to expression. Because the City ordinances
restricting leafleting and vending message-bearing materials fail even
under the lesser standard applied by the district court, we affirm the
district court's conclusion that they are unconstitutional. We remand
to allow the district court to examine the other ordinances in
question under the proper standard of review."
>
>(...)
>
>In January 2002, antiwar student activists handing out fliers in front
>of the Boardwalk Casino were met by casino security, who threatened to
>handcuff and remove them from the sidewalk-and, according to some
>reports, said they'd do the same to the attorney who came to their
>defense. (In this case, it was Metro who backed security off.)
>
>(WHAT? You mean the POLICE forced the PRIVATE SECURITY people to back
>off?? How IS that POSSIBLE??)
Because the security guards has no jurisdiction that's why.
What? Another op-ed? God but you're lazy. And besides Milt, it was
CITY OFFICIALS, even as your cite claims, that gave them the power.
Can you read Milt. It said Rose DISSENTED, arguing arguing public
thoroughfares are indeed public forums deserving of full first
Amendment protection. And it even says they are ENTITLED TO RESTRICT
the distribution of handbills.
God but you are stupid.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
A distinction without a difference Milt.
>Which is one of the reasons why it's puzzling that the Bushies get away
>with so much crime with impunity...
>>
>> And then there was this one:
>>
>> "But rights are not natural; they are conceived, acknowledged
>> and protected by the government. " -- Milt Shook.
>
>I see...
>
>So the guy who first invented Coca Cola IS Coca Cola?
>Henry Ford actually WAS a car, was he?
>Bill Gates IS Windows?
What are you babbling about Milt?
>>
>> >How many straw men ya got? You have to be running out...
>>
>> What you refer to as "straw men" are simply your words.
>>
>No, Jeffrey. They're you, demonstrating your inability to comprehend
>logic.
>
>(note that I used the word "conceived," not "created")
And the difference is what Milt?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Yes I do. The First Amendment places restrictions on what the
government can do so how can his right to be there come from the First
Amendment?
>>
>>And then there was this one:
>>
>>"But rights are not natural; they are conceived, acknowledged
>>and protected by the government. " -- Milt Shook.
>
>They are acknowledged and protected by the government. They are
>conceived by the people.
Not according to Milt. But of course it depends on which day you ask.
milt....@gmail.com
I'm sorry, but there is no way Jeffrey's not simply trolling. No one
could possibly be this stupid and still be able to type.
1. You are protected from the government making any law abridging your
freedom of speech.
2. When a judge makes a decision, it has the force of law.
therefore, when a judge "laughs (someone) out of court" in the
situation I described, he is therefore making a law abridging that
person's free speech rights, and is therefore violating the First
Amendment.
Jesus; how many more ways do I have to put this before it penetrates
the skull?
These assholes wanna be right so bad, they can't even see hwo illogical
their argument is.
>
> >>
> >>And then there was this one:
> >>
> >>"But rights are not natural; they are conceived, acknowledged
> >>and protected by the government. " -- Milt Shook.
> >
> >They are acknowledged and protected by the government. They are
> >conceived by the people.
>
> Not according to Milt. But of course it depends on which day you ask.
Jeffrey, it's a distinction without a difference. Most laws are
conceived by representaives of the people in the government. The
problem with you is, you have this concept of "the government" as some
sort of huge monolith that is disconnected from the people. It may seem
so at times, but ultimately, we have the say as to how things are run,
and hat the laws are.
Even though the Bill of Rights was conceived by the government, the
states had to ratify it. Got it?
(I'm always hopeful...)
>
> >>>How many straw men ya got? You have to be running out...
> >>
> >>What you refer to as "straw men" are simply your words.
> >
> >Which you utterly fail to understand.
>
He has to. How could anyone have a degree and work at a University, and
not have a lick of common sense?
steven...@yahoo.com
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> 1. You are protected from the government making any law abridging your
> freedom of speech.
> 2. When a judge makes a decision, it has the force of law.
>
> therefore, when a judge "laughs (someone) out of court" in the
> situation I described, he is therefore making a law abridging that
> person's free speech rights, and is therefore violating the First
> Amendment.
>
> Jesus; how many more ways do I have to put this before it penetrates
> the skull?
<LOL> You'd have to explain how a judge could use the First Amendment
to stop a private citizen from doing something when the First Amendment
doesn't apply to private citizens....
nevermore
>
>No, idiot. That wasn't the question. I mean, that's a stupid question,
>too, but this is the dumbest question in the history of political
>posting on Usenet.
>
>"Where exactly in the First amendment does it say that you have the
> right to stand on a street corner and hand out flyers?" -- Steven
>Canyon
Well, where is it, Milt? Where is your proof that the First Amendment
gives you the right to stand on a street corner or anywhere else?
>Why would I even begin to waste my time arguing with someone who
>doesn't even have the most rudimentary knowledge of how the
>Constitution works or what it means?
That was your chance to show me up, Milt. All you needed to do is
show your proof that the First Amendment gives you the right to stand
on a street corner? Should have been a simple thing to do if indeed
you had some rudimentary knowledge of how the Constitution works and
what it means?
>And to answer the less-stupid, but still ignorant question above,
Answer the question is something that you can't do... and I gave you
five days just to check out the First Amendment so you could point out
the pertinent part that related to your right to stand somewhere....
>the
>First Amendment kicks in when I go to court and ask them to stop this
>guy from running me off a public sidewalk.
No Milt, "only government interference is a trigger for First
Amendment review..
http://www.cla-net.org/resources/articles/minow_doyouallow.php
...so your First Amendment complaint about a store owner isn't *EVER*
going to kick it in....
>I have no basis for asking
>for anything if I can't claim a First Amendment right to be there in
>the first place.
So back up that claim like I challenged you to do... where does the
First Amendment say you can be there?... or anywhere, for that
matter?
> I can't, for example, pass out flyers inside of hsi
>store, because I have no right to do so. I do, however, have that right
>on a public sidewalk.
Well, actually....., "[...]the First Amendment forbids only government
interference with free speech, [...]"
http://www.mtn.org/~newscncl/newsworthy/articles/c-codes.html
>I can point to the fact that I have a right to be there.
Do you indeed? Well, here's your chance to point to it...
That's certainly what you're going to have to do in a courtroom...
>Can
>you point to anything in the Constitution that gives him the right to
>run me off a PUBLIC sidewalk?
No Milt, That's a straw man... I haven't claimed any Constitutional
rights to do that.... I haven't made *any* Constitutional claims....
...you have, though, and you have totally failed to document that
claim....
nevermore
That from Zepp Jamieson who believes... "The first amendment means
that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719
>>JSL
nevermore
None of Milt's cites are anything like the situation he describes...
Milt likes to imagine that his case is similar to cases where private
parties was either the functional equivalent of a municipality, as in
the Chickasaw case, or where the private citizen had wanted a
government entity to restrict the protestor(s) speech, which, of
course, the government cannot do...
The fact that Milt can't come up with any case similar to the one he
claims doesn't phase him a bit though, morons like Milt don't need any
fact to support their fantasies.. it's enough for them to *feel*
them...
Notice, however, that even Zepp knows better than to try to defend his
"First Amendment claim.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
But yet in the case I cited the judge did just that Milt.
>Jesus; how many more ways do I have to put this before it penetrates
>the skull?
>
>These assholes wanna be right so bad, they can't even see hwo illogical
>their argument is.
Keep the faith baby.
>>
>> >>
>> >>And then there was this one:
>> >>
>> >>"But rights are not natural; they are conceived, acknowledged
>> >>and protected by the government. " -- Milt Shook.
>> >
>> >They are acknowledged and protected by the government. They are
>> >conceived by the people.
>>
>> Not according to Milt. But of course it depends on which day you ask.
>
>Jeffrey, it's a distinction without a difference.
That's interesting Milt. First you say the are concieved by the
people, then by the government and there is no difference.
Rights exists despite govenments Milt.
>Most laws are
>conceived by representaives of the people in the government. The
>problem with you is, you have this concept of "the government" as some
>sort of huge monolith that is disconnected from the people. It may seem
>so at times, but ultimately, we have the say as to how things are run,
>and hat the laws are.
Laws aren't rights.
>Even though the Bill of Rights was conceived by the government, the
>states had to ratify it. Got it?
What government conceived of the Bill or Rights Milt?
>(I'm always hopeful...)
>>
>> >>>How many straw men ya got? You have to be running out...
>> >>
>> >>What you refer to as "straw men" are simply your words.
>> >
>> >Which you utterly fail to understand.
>>
>He has to. How could anyone have a degree and work at a University, and
>not have a lick of common sense?
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
nevermore wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2006 05:40:38 -0800, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >No, idiot. That wasn't the question. I mean, that's a stupid question,
> >too, but this is the dumbest question in the history of political
> >posting on Usenet.
> >
> >"Where exactly in the First amendment does it say that you have the
> > right to stand on a street corner and hand out flyers?" -- Steven
> >Canyon
>
> Well, where is it, Milt? Where is your proof that the First Amendment
> gives you the right to stand on a street corner or anywhere else?
It's in the text, you moron.
>
> >Why would I even begin to waste my time arguing with someone who
> >doesn't even have the most rudimentary knowledge of how the
> >Constitution works or what it means?
>
> That was your chance to show me up, Milt. All you needed to do is
> show your proof that the First Amendment gives you the right to stand
> on a street corner? Should have been a simple thing to do if indeed
> you had some rudimentary knowledge of how the Constitution works and
> what it means?
The proof is in the text itself, you idiot! Are you joking with this??
>
> >And to answer the less-stupid, but still ignorant question above,
>
> Answer the question is something that you can't do... and I gave you
> five days just to check out the First Amendment so you could point out
> the pertinent part that related to your right to stand somewhere....
(The government) shall make no law... 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.
Okay. I'm standing on the corner, obeying every other law. In what way
is the judge (government) essentially ENDORSING the acts of an
individual in removing me from the public sidewalk (by refusing to step
in and prevent it) NOT "mak(ing) a law... abridging the freedom of
speech"?
Better yet, you claim that might right to stand on the street corner
and hand out flyers does not derive from that part of the Cosntitution.
Why don't you point to the portion of the Constitution from which is
DOES derive? Or are you going to suit there and say, stupidly, that no
one has a right to stand on a public street corner and hand out flyers?
You really don't understand any of that you're arguing. The shit you
keep citing actually supports ME, not you...
steven...@yahoo.com
milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> nevermore wrote:
> > On 22 Feb 2006 05:40:38 -0800, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >No, idiot. That wasn't the question. I mean, that's a stupid question,
> > >too, but this is the dumbest question in the history of political
> > >posting on Usenet.
> > >
> > >"Where exactly in the First amendment does it say that you have the
> > > right to stand on a street corner and hand out flyers?" -- Steven
> > >Canyon
> >
> > Well, where is it, Milt? Where is your proof that the First Amendment
> > gives you the right to stand on a street corner or anywhere else?
>
> It's in the text, you moron.
Here's a copy of the text of the First Amendment, Milt..
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.
...so where exactly is the part where it gives you the right to stand
on a streetcorner?
> > >Why would I even begin to waste my time arguing with someone who
> > >doesn't even have the most rudimentary knowledge of how the
> > >Constitution works or what it means?
> >
> > That was your chance to show me up, Milt. All you needed to do is
> > show your proof that the First Amendment gives you the right to stand
> > on a street corner? Should have been a simple thing to do if indeed
> > you had some rudimentary knowledge of how the Constitution works and
> > what it means?
>
> The proof is in the text itself, you idiot! Are you joking with this??
Here's a copy of the text of the First Amendment, Milt..
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.
...so where exactly is the part where it gives you the right to stand
on a streetcorner?
> > >And to answer the less-stupid, but still ignorant question above,
> >
> > Answer the question is something that you can't do... and I gave you
> > five days just to check out the First Amendment so you could point out
> > the pertinent part that related to your right to stand somewhere....
>
> (The government) shall make no law... 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.
>
> Okay. I'm standing on the corner, obeying every other law. In what way
> is the judge (government) essentially ENDORSING the acts of an
> individual in removing me from the public sidewalk (by refusing to step
> in and prevent it) NOT "mak(ing) a law... abridging the freedom of
> speech"?
The Judge isn't endorsing anything, you hapless moron, he's simply
telling you that he can't enforce the First Amendment against a private
citizen because it doesn't apply to private citizen. He'll probably
suggest that you try using a law that does apply.... before he laughs
you out of the courtroom.
> Better yet, you claim that might right to stand on the street corner
> and hand out flyers does not derive from that part of the Cosntitution.
> Why don't you point to the portion of the Constitution from which is
> DOES derive? Or are you going to suit there and say, stupidly, that no
> one has a right to stand on a public street corner and hand out flyers?
<ROTFLMAO> Wait....are you actually trying to claim that the only
rights you have come from the Constitution, you ignorant loon? I knew
you were ignorant, Milt, but I didn't know you were THAT ignorant.
> You really don't understand any of that you're arguing. The shit you
> keep citing actually supports ME, not you...
<LOL> Keep thinking that, Milt..
MikeSoja
>MikeSoja wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2006 17:05:21 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>>>The First Amendment is the SOLE reason I can go to court and get an
>>>order against him. So I'm right.
>> No, Milty moron, you can go to court soley because the person
>> committed some crime against you, either harassment or assault or
>> kidnapping, depending on exactly what he did to remove you from your
>> precious corner.
>All of you are so fucking ignorant, one has to wonder why you spend so
>much time in political chat rooms.
>There IS NO CRIME if I have no right to be there in the first
>place!!!!!!!!!!!
>What part of this are you not getting. If I do the same thing on your
>front lawn, there can be no harassment or assault for physically
>removing me, depending on the level of force and the jurisdiction in
>question.
>In order for me to have you charged with a crime, even (which I chose
>not to do in this case), I must have the right to be there. That comes
>from the First Amendment.
No, moron Milty. The shopkeeper who forcibly removes you from the
public sidewalk hasn't transgressed because you have a right to be
on the sidewalk, but because he doesn't have the authority to remove
you from property that he doesn't own.
>> If the man just stood there and yelled in your stupid, ugly yap, I
>> doubt you could do much about it.
>Actually, that would depend on the statutes in that state/town.
>>>You throw about a non-sequiter like "controlling authority," which has
>>>no meaning here, and then claim I used the term, and not you?
>> Listen, Milt, I know you're a fucking moron and all, but surely you
>> can comprehend the difference between claiming you used a phrase in
>> a sentence and using the phrase to describe your stupidity. I
>> didn't say you used the phrase "controlling authority". I used the
>> phrase to more fully describe your idiotic assertions.
>And it's a non-sequiter. I would also ask you to read your own words:
How come you're still misspelling "non sequitur", Milty, even after
I pointed out your error (which you snipped) in the last post?
And your calling it a "non-sequiter" [sic] doesn't make it one. Nor,
when you claim below that a phrase "has no meaning in this context"
does it mean that the phrase has no meaning in the context it was
used, and I defy you to *demonstrate* your claims or retract them.
>> >> You're stupidly lying, Milty. Read the sentence to which I was
>> >> responding. It's right there. You said, "I have a First Amendment
>> >> right to be there." Now, when I tell you the First Amendment isn't
>> >> the controlling authority on such things, you claim you never said
>> >> it was?
>Hmmm... sure looks like you're claiming I said the First Amendment was
>"the controlling authority"...
You're the one who keeps claiming you can sue on the basis of the
legal authority of the First Amendment, Milty, so I don't know the
level of damage the ball bearings rattling around in your skull have
wreaked, but I'd gather it's substantial.
Mike Soja
milt....@gmail.com
So, I have the right to be there. And I have the right to pass out
flyers, because the First Amendment says so.
So, why again would a judge "laugh me out of court" for asking him/her
for an injunction barring this asshole from doing it again?
MikeSoja
>
>MikeSoja wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2006 18:56:45 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>> >In order for me to have you charged with a crime, even (which I chose
>> >not to do in this case), I must have the right to be there. That comes
>> >from the First Amendment.
>> No, moron Milty. The shopkeeper who forcibly removes you from the
>> public sidewalk hasn't transgressed because you have a right to be
>> on the sidewalk, but because he doesn't have the authority to remove
>> you from property that he doesn't own.
>So, I have the right to be there.
I just explained that you don't. Having the freedom to be there is
different from having the right to be there. You do not have a
right to that which you do not already own.
> And I have the right to pass out
>flyers, because the First Amendment says so.
Actually, Milty moron, if you carefully read the First Amendment of
the Constitution (it's a single sentence, and shouldn't take you too
long) you'll see that it says no such thing.
>So, why again would a judge "laugh me out of court" for asking him/her
>for an injunction barring this asshole from doing it again?
Because you're too stupid to know you've been assaulted, and instead
want to bring suit for a crime that doesn't exist?
Mike Soja
milt....@gmail.com
MikeSoja wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2006 10:33:19 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>
> >
> >MikeSoja wrote:
>
> >> On 26 Feb 2006 18:56:45 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>
> >> >In order for me to have you charged with a crime, even (which I chose
> >> >not to do in this case), I must have the right to be there. That comes
> >> >from the First Amendment.
>
> >> No, moron Milty. The shopkeeper who forcibly removes you from the
> >> public sidewalk hasn't transgressed because you have a right to be
> >> on the sidewalk, but because he doesn't have the authority to remove
> >> you from property that he doesn't own.
>
> >So, I have the right to be there.
>
> I just explained that you don't. Having the freedom to be there is
> different from having the right to be there. You do not have a
> right to that which you do not already own.
According to the Bill of RIGHTS (not freedoms) I do have the right to
speak from a PUBLIC area, and the government cannot stop me.
>
> > And I have the right to pass out
> >flyers, because the First Amendment says so.
>
> Actually, Milty moron, if you carefully read the First Amendment of
> the Constitution (it's a single sentence, and shouldn't take you too
> long) you'll see that it says no such thing.
(Government) shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
Hmmm...
Sure says so in my Constitution. You are talking about the Constitution
of the United States, right?
>
> >So, why again would a judge "laugh me out of court" for asking him/her
> >for an injunction barring this asshole from doing it again?
>
> Because you're too stupid to know you've been assaulted, and instead
> want to bring suit for a crime that doesn't exist?
>
I can't be assaulted if I don't have the right to be there in the first
place, dumbass.
If I'm doing the same thing on your front lawn, and you forcibly remove
me, there is (usually) not an assault. Why do you think that is?
MikeSoja
>MikeSoja wrote:
>> On 28 Feb 2006 10:33:19 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>> >MikeSoja wrote:
>> >> On 26 Feb 2006 18:56:45 -0800, milt....@gmail.com posted:
>> >> >In order for me to have you charged with a crime, even (which I chose
>> >> >not to do in this case), I must have the right to be there. That comes
>> >> >from the First Amendment.
>> >> No, moron Milty. The shopkeeper who forcibly removes you from the
>> >> public sidewalk hasn't transgressed because you have a right to be
>> >> on the sidewalk, but because he doesn't have the authority to remove
>> >> you from property that he doesn't own.
>> >So, I have the right to be there.
>> I just explained that you don't. Having the freedom to be there is
>> different from having the right to be there. You do not have a
>> right to that which you do not already own.
>According to the Bill of RIGHTS (not freedoms) I do have the right to
>speak from a PUBLIC area, and the government cannot stop me.
You're still confusing the words "freedom" and "right", and you're
putting things into the Bill of Rights that aren't there, but then,
you're Moron Milt.
>> > And I have the right to pass out
>> >flyers, because the First Amendment says so.
>> Actually, Milty moron, if you carefully read the First Amendment of
>> the Constitution (it's a single sentence, and shouldn't take you too
>> long) you'll see that it says no such thing.
>
>(Government) shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or
>the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
>government for a redress of grievances.
>Hmmm...
>Sure says so in my Constitution. You are talking about the Constitution
>of the United States, right?
You're twisting it, moron. The Constitution says that the *Feds*
don't have *the right* to make laws curbing your speech. It leaves
unaddressed the nature and scope of the rights which normally acrue
to free men.
>> >So, why again would a judge "laugh me out of court" for asking him/her
>> >for an injunction barring this asshole from doing it again?
>> Because you're too stupid to know you've been assaulted, and instead
>> want to bring suit for a crime that doesn't exist?
>I can't be assaulted if I don't have the right to be there in the first
>place, dumbass.
>If I'm doing the same thing on your front lawn, and you forcibly remove
>me, there is (usually) not an assault. Why do you think that is?
If you're on my front lawn and my *neighbor* forcibly removes you,
you've been assaulted.
It has to do with the contextual authority of the person doing the
removing, moron, not the particular piece of property your ignorant
self happens to be dumbstruck on.
Mike Soja
steven...@yahoo.com
It wouold be because you filed this lawsuit based on the First
Amendment and your First Amendment rights were never abridged, nor even
threatened... ...not even a little bit.