#Moron Milt Shook tried to use "discrimination" to argue about free speech
nevermore
Milt Shook writes:
>nevermore wrote:
>
>> Milt Shook professes the following:
>
>> "Yet you, in your infinite stupidity, think the First Amendment
>> only protects us from the government."
>> --Milt Shook
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=69mdnQzM9536gFTdRVn-jg%40comcast.com
>
>> While cite after cite (below) shows that Milt is not only wrong, but
>> stupid....
>
>No, it does not. It actually supports me, you dipshit. That's what
>makes you so fucking stupid. Your very own examples prove ME right, not
>you..
>
>> The First Amendment applies only to government action, not the
>> actions of a private person or corporation.
>> -http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
>>From that article:
>
>The only time the government prevents a private company from refusing
>service is if the company wants to discriminate on the basis of race,
>sex, religion, handicapped status, or certain other specificly
>protected classes. However, there is nothing that protects messages on
>t-shirts.
>
>Hmmm... so the government DOES protect us from the actions of private
>individuals. Interesting. How is that possible, given Canyon's basic
> premise, which is that they DON'T??
<LOL> I certainly never claimed that government doesn't protect you
from actions of private citizens, you raving imbecile, I said, and all
the cites below say, that the First Amendment doesn't protect you from
actions of private individuals...
...the question here is whether Milt is just being dishonest, or if he
is actually stupid enough to believe that by asserting that our
governments protects their citizens from the actions of other citizens
proves that it is the First Amendment that provides the power to so
do?
I'm guessing that Milt *is* just that stupid.
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
federal or state." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507
(1976)
-http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
"The First Amendment applies only to government action, not the
actions of a private person or corporation."
-http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
"The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by
Congress, and not to the actions of private persons"
-http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1
"The First Amendment, unfortunately, only limits the coercive powers
of the Government [..]"
-http://www.workrights.org/issue_whistle/wb_legislative_brief.html
"The First Amendment applies only when Congress passes a law
abridging speech. Suppressions of speech are not violations of the
First Amendment unless the State does the suppressing. "
-http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
"While the First Amendment forbids only government interference with
free speech, [...]"
-http://www.mtn.org/~newscncl/newsworthy/articles/c-codes.html
As with all speech, only government interference is a trigger
for First Amendment review.
-http://www.cla-net.org/resources/articles/minow_doyouallow.php
"Remember, the First Amendment only limits government actions,
not private actions."
-http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cde_12-3-02.htm
milt....@gmail.com
I see. And the exception built into the First Amendment appears where,
exactly (remembering that the Fourteenth Amendment extended equal
protection for all laws to the states, as well...)???
>
> ...the question here is whether Milt is just being dishonest, or if he
> is actually stupid enough to believe that by asserting that our
> governments protects their citizens from the actions of other citizens
> proves that it is the First Amendment that provides the power to so
> do?
>
> I'm guessing that Milt *is* just that stupid.
In the case of someone trying to legally pass out flyers on the street
corner, and who is stopped by another citizen, please explain the
exception you claim is carved out of the First Amendment, and
apparently none of the others...
>
> "It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
> free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> federal or state." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507
> (1976)
> -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
And as I have pointed out repeatedly, you lame motherfucker, the
judge's "laugh(ing) the case out of court would in itself be an
abridgement of your free speech rights. So which is it? Are you
dishonest or stupid. I'm gonna say both.
>
> "The First Amendment applies only to government action, not the
> actions of a private person or corporation."
> -http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
I refute it and he repeats it. You are the flat stupidest fuck on
Usenet, Canyon, and this proves it. A judge throwing a legitimate First
Amendment claim out of court would be government action, I'm pretty
sure. Take it to an appeals court and see what they say...
(same shit already refuted above repeated, because Canyon's too fucking
stupid to know when he's in over his head.
steven...@yahoo.com
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> nevermore wrote:
> > Milt Shook writes:
> >
> >
> > >nevermore wrote:
> > >
> > >> Milt Shook professes the following:
> > >
> > >> "Yet you, in your infinite stupidity, think the First Amendment
> > >> only protects us from the government."
> > >> --Milt Shook
>>>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=69mdnQzM9536gFTdRVn-jg%40comcast.com
<LOL> Lot's of people say that the First Amendment only protects from
the government. I've listed a few at the bottom of this post....
> > >> While cite after cite (below) shows that Milt is not only wrong, but
> > >> stupid....
> > >
> > >No, it does not. It actually supports me, you dipshit. That's what
> > >makes you so fucking stupid. Your very own examples prove ME right, not
> > >you..
> > >
> > >> The First Amendment applies only to government action, not the
> > >> actions of a private person or corporation.
> > >> -http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
> > >>From that article:
> > >
> > >The only time the government prevents a private company from refusing
> > >service is if the company wants to discriminate on the basis of race,
> > >sex, religion, handicapped status, or certain other specificly
> > >protected classes. However, there is nothing that protects messages on
> > >t-shirts.
> > >
> > >Hmmm... so the government DOES protect us from the actions of private
> > >individuals. Interesting. How is that possible, given Canyon's basic
> > > premise, which is that they DON'T??
> >
> > <LOL> I certainly never claimed that government doesn't protect you
> > from actions of private citizens, you raving imbecile, I said, and all
> > the cites below say, that the First Amendment doesn't protect you from
> > actions of private individuals...
>
> I see. And the exception built into the First Amendment appears where,
<LOL> Exceptions? So now Milt has invented some notion of
exceptions?
> exactly (remembering that the Fourteenth Amendment extended equal
> protection for all laws to the states, as well...)???
yeah, Milt, your speech is protected against actions of states by the
First amendment... but it doesn't protect you against actions by
private citizens, as all the cites at the bottom show you...
> > ...the question here is whether Milt is just being dishonest, or if he
> > is actually stupid enough to believe that by asserting that our
> > governments protects their citizens from the actions of other citizens
> > proves that it is the First Amendment that provides the power to so
> > do?
> >
> > I'm guessing that Milt *is* just that stupid.
>
> In the case of someone trying to legally pass out flyers on the street
> corner, and who is stopped by another citizen, please explain the
> exception you claim is carved out of the First Amendment, and
> apparently none of the others...
> >
> > "It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
> > free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> > federal or state." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507
> > (1976)
> > -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
>
> And as I have pointed out repeatedly, you lame motherfucker, the
> judge's "laugh(ing) the case out of court would in itself be an
> abridgement of your free speech rights. So which is it? Are you
> dishonest or stupid. I'm gonna say both.
Judges routrinely toss out claims that have no basis in the law.... A
First Amendment based claim against a private citizen has no basis in
law because you cannot use the First Amendmen to against a private
citizen because the First Amendment doesn't restrict the actions of a
private citizen...
> > "The First Amendment applies only to government action, not the
> > actions of a private person or corporation."
> > -http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
>
> I refute it and he repeats it.
Ahhh, Milt claims he's refuted the experts... of course he hasn't
because he can't..
Instead of refuting, Milt just snips.... It's all back at the bottom
of this post, though..
You are the flat stupidest fuck on
> Usenet, Canyon, and this proves it. A judge throwing a legitimate First
> Amendment claim out of court would be government action, I'm pretty
> sure. Take it to an appeals court and see what they say...
<laughing> in order for a government action to be illegal, it has to
be.. well, illegal....
> (same shit already refuted above repeated, because Canyon's too fucking
> stupid to know when he's in over his head.
Irony anyone?
<LOL>
Here's some cites that refute your claims Milt.....
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee
of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by
government, federal or state." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB,
424 U.S. 507 (1976)
-http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
"The First Amendment applies only to government action, not the
actions of a private person or corporation."
-http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
"The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by
Congress, and not to the actions of private persons"
-http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1
"The First Amendment, unfortunately, only limits the coercive powers
of the Government [..]"
-http://www.workrights.org/issue_whistle/wb_legislative_brief.html
"The First Amendment applies only when Congress passes a law
abridging speech. Suppressions of speech are not violations of the
First Amendment unless the State is does the suppressing. "
milt....@gmail.com
No you dumb fucker... How fucking stupid are you, anyway??
Okay. ready?
1. I have a right to pass out flyers on a PUBLIC sidewalk, do I not?
2. The Store Owner has NO RIGHT to run me off the sidewalk.
3. According to your scenario, the judge will "laugh me out of court."
No matter how many times I mention it, you simply do not get that such
a thing would constitute "government action' that you yourself is
prohibited by the First Amendment.
So, in order to believe that, you would have to be stupid enough to
believe the store owner had a right to run me off the sidewalk, but I
have no right to pass out the flyers.
So, after a couple of YEARS of clarifying this for you, and you
ignoring the clarifications, I guess we can just assume you are too
fucking stupid to understand the most basic legal concepts.
Do you get that the judge "laughing me out of court" would be exactly
the "government action" spoken about in pretty much all of your
examples? I'm presenting the court (government) with a demand that they
assert my right to free speech, and you're telling me the court will
take action that undermines that right. The effective result would be
that I no longer have the right to free speech on that corner, because
the store owner can run me off at will. Does that really sound correct
to you? Do you understand that the concept of justice is based on the
RESULT of a government action and not the mere act of asking the
government to intervene? Your problem, you mud-dumb shithead, is that
you think the lawsuit is an action in itself, against the store owner.
That is your mistake. It's not; it's a request for government action.
>
> > exactly (remembering that the Fourteenth Amendment extended equal
> > protection for all laws to the states, as well...)???
>
> yeah, Milt, your speech is protected against actions of states by the
> First amendment... but it doesn't protect you against actions by
> private citizens, as all the cites at the bottom show you...
Again, you muddumb asshole...
The judge telling me to fuck off is most definitely a government
action. You're too fucking stupid to understand that you're
contradicting yourself.
Some guy stops you from passing out flyers on a public sidewalk, and
according to you, I have no recourse, because (according to you) the
government can't do anything about it. Read the First Amendment, you
dumb fuck. I take him to court, and they HAVE to protect my right to
free speech. If the judge refuses, that's government action...
Jesus Christ, you are simply too stupid to be believed. And so fucking
proud of it, too!!
And it's in the previous post, too, you dumb fuck.
Please, show me one cite which supports your contention that, should a
judge "laugh me out of court" and I choose to appeal, the Appeals Court
upholds the judge's summary judgment...
Dumbass...
Gandalf Grey
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140401460.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Well put. There's no such thing as a right that does not demand a duty from
others. In our country, any legal right requires the presence of police, a
court system and watchdogs over that system. So there is in effect no such
thing as a negative right. All rights are positive in that they require an
affirmative action on the part of the government AND all rights involve
costs that ultimately come down to taxes...that includes property rights AND
any right to non-interference.
> >
> > > exactly (remembering that the Fourteenth Amendment extended equal
> > > protection for all laws to the states, as well...)???
> >
> > yeah, Milt, your speech is protected against actions of states by the
> > First amendment... but it doesn't protect you against actions by
> > private citizens, as all the cites at the bottom show you...
>
> Again, you muddumb asshole...
>
> The judge telling me to fuck off is most definitely a government
> action. You're too fucking stupid to understand that you're
> contradicting yourself.
Right! .....on both counts, although the part about Canyon being stupid is
sort of a given.
steven...@yahoo.com
You sure do..
> 2. The Store Owner has NO RIGHT to run me off the sidewalk.
That's corrct...
> 3. According to your scenario, the judge will "laugh me out of court."
Absolutely, if you try to use the First amendment to get the store
owner to stop...
...and that's because: "Suppressions of speech are not violations of
the
First Amendment unless the State is does the suppressing. "
-http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
> No matter how many times I mention it, you simply do not get that such
> a thing would constitute "government action' that you yourself is
> prohibited by the First Amendment.
<LOL> "only government interference is a trigger for First Amendment
review.
-http://www.cla-net.org/resources/articles/minow_doyouallow.php
> So, in order to believe that, you would have to be stupid enough to
> believe the store owner had a right to run me off the sidewalk, but I
> have no right to pass out the flyers.
The issue is not what the store owner had a righjt to do, the issue is
which law applies to his actions, and: "It is, of course, a
commonplace that the constitutional guarantee
of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by
government, federal or state." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB,
424 U.S. 507 (1976)
-http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
> So, after a couple of YEARS of clarifying this for you, and you
> ignoring the clarifications, I guess we can just assume you are too
> fucking stupid to understand the most basic legal concepts.
Irony anyone?
> Do you get that the judge "laughing me out of court" would be exactly
> the "government action" spoken about in pretty much all of your
> examples? I'm presenting the court (government) with a demand that they
> assert my right to free speech, and you're telling me the court will
> take action that undermines that right. The effective result would be
> that I no longer have the right to free speech on that corner, because
> the store owner can run me off at will. Does that really sound correct
> to you? Do you understand that the concept of justice is based on the
> RESULT of a government action and not the mere act of asking the
> government to intervene? Your problem, you mud-dumb shithead, is that
> you think the lawsuit is an action in itself, against the store owner.
> That is your mistake. It's not; it's a request for government action.
"only government interference is a trigger for First Amendment review.
-http://www.cla-net.org/resources/articles/minow_doyouallow.php
> > > exactly (remembering that the Fourteenth Amendment extended equal
> > > protection for all laws to the states, as well...)???
> >
> > yeah, Milt, your speech is protected against actions of states by the
> > First amendment... but it doesn't protect you against actions by
> > private citizens, as all the cites at the bottom show you...
>
> Again, you muddumb asshole...
>
> The judge telling me to fuck off is most definitely a government
> action. You're too fucking stupid to understand that you're
> contradicting yourself.
"only government interference is a trigger for First Amendment review.
-http://www.cla-net.org/resources/articles/minow_doyouallow.php
> Some guy stops you from passing out flyers on a public sidewalk, and
> according to you, I have no recourse, because (according to you) the
You might have recouse, I never said you had no recourse, you moron,
it's just that whatever valid recouse you had does not involve the
First Amendment unless the government is the one that is actually
abridging your free speech....
> government can't do anything about it. Read the First Amendment, you
> dumb fuck.
<LOL> Yeah, the prt we're talking about here says "Congress shall
make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...]" Thats
subsequently been
I take him to court, and they HAVE to protect my right to
> free speech. If the judge refuses, that's government action...
<ROTFLMAO> The judghe isn't abridging your rights, Milt, he's only
saying "hey, you dumb ass, The First Amendment isn't applicable here,
why not use a law that is?"
...and all those cites tell you that the First Amendment only applies
to govrnment suppression of speech, you poor dimbulb... You have to
be extra stupid even to get through high school without learning that
the Bill of Rights was put forth to limit the powers of government, not
private citizens.... but Milt actually got through college without
learning that.... and now he parades his ignorance around for
everyone to see....
> And it's in the previous post, too, you dumb fuck.
>
> Please, show me one cite which supports your contention that, should a
> judge "laugh me out of court" and I choose to appeal, the Appeals Court
> upholds the judge's summary judgment...
You're never going to get that far with a First Amendment based suit,
Milt. since the First Amendment doesn't address the actions of a
Private citizen... never has, never will... If you want to take
*ANY* action against private citizens, it will have to be based on
something other than the First Amendment....
nevermore
<ROTFLMAO> ...and here's Hansen demonstrating his ignorance on the
subject....
Both he and Milt are just too stupid to read and understand the
following......
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee
of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by
government, federal or state." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB,
424 U.S. 507 (1976)
-http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
"The First Amendment applies only to government action, not the
actions of a private person or corporation."
-http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
"The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by
Congress, and not to the actions of private persons"
-http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1
"The First Amendment, unfortunately, only limits the coercive powers
of the Government [..]"
-http://www.workrights.org/issue_whistle/wb_legislative_brief.html
"Suppressions of speech are not violations of the
First Amendment unless the State is does the suppressing. "
-http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
"While the First Amendment forbids only government interference with
free speech, [...]"
-http://www.mtn.org/~newscncl/newsworthy/articles/c-codes.html
milt....@gmail.com
You dumb motherfucker...
I'm not USING the First Amendment. Where do you get this "USING" shit,
anyway??
It's the fucking LAW, you nimrod. And the judge takes an oath to uphold
the law!!! Yet, according to YOU, you stupid git, the judge can simply
deny his oath and run me out of court, because you think that the above
means something it doesn't mean.
One more time; the judge throwing me out of court would be a
"government action." And yet, you claim the First Amendment would not
apply. I'm still waiting for you to defend that logic, you mud dumb
fucktard.
>
> > No matter how many times I mention it, you simply do not get that such
> > a thing would constitute "government action' that you yourself is
> > prohibited by the First Amendment.
>
> <LOL> "only government interference is a trigger for First Amendment
> review.
> -http://www.cla-net.org/resources/articles/minow_doyouallow.php
>
And the judge throwing me out of court would fit the very definition of
government interference, if you believe that I have the right to be
there and he has no right to run me off. The effective result, you
inbred asshole, is that the store owner's non-existent right to throw
me off the public sidewalk would be upheld, while my existing right to
use the sidewalk would be denied. You are contradicting yourself, and
you're too fucking stupid to see it.
>
> > So, in order to believe that, you would have to be stupid enough to
> > believe the store owner had a right to run me off the sidewalk, but I
> > have no right to pass out the flyers.
>
> The issue is not what the store owner had a righjt to do, the issue is
> which law applies to his actions, and: "It is, of course, a
> commonplace that the constitutional guarantee
> of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by
> government, federal or state." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB,
> 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
>
-http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
And yet, the judge (government) isn't abridging my free speech rights
how??
> > So, after a couple of YEARS of clarifying this for you, and you
> > ignoring the clarifications, I guess we can just assume you are too
> > fucking stupid to understand the most basic legal concepts.
>
> Irony anyone?
In every one of your posts, fuckwit.
steven...@yahoo.com
Relax, Milt, before you hurt yourself...
> I'm not USING the First Amendment. Where do you get this "USING" shit,
> anyway??
<LOL> yet below, you say you are ... oh well...
> It's the fucking LAW, you nimrod. And the judge takes an oath to uphold
> the law!!! Yet, according to YOU, you stupid git, the judge can simply
> deny his oath and run me out of court, because you think that the above
> means something it doesn't mean.
>
> One more time; the judge throwing me out of court would be a
> "government action." And yet, you claim the First Amendment would not
> apply. I'm still waiting for you to defend that logic, you mud dumb
> fucktard.
Where does the First Amendment say that a judge cannot throw you out of
court??
Your free speech rights under the First Amendment do not address the
issue of a private citizen's actions...
Gandalf Grey
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:hh7jv195troe5e0s9...@4ax.com...
Not ignorent enough to know that only government courts can guarantee
government forbearance. The legal system in America is an active force and
an expensive one. Those courts are supported with taxpayer money. Hence
there is no such thing as a purely negative right.
milt....@gmail.com
Oh, believe me you brain dead motherfucker, I'm quite relaxed.
>
> > I'm not USING the First Amendment. Where do you get this "USING" shit,
> > anyway??
>
> <LOL> yet below, you say you are ... oh well...
No, I don't, yu fucking nimrod. Taking him to court is USING the court,
if it can be said I'm using anything. That's why they're there, you
fucking shit-for-brains.
>
> > It's the fucking LAW, you nimrod. And the judge takes an oath to uphold
> > the law!!! Yet, according to YOU, you stupid git, the judge can simply
> > deny his oath and run me out of court, because you think that the above
> > means something it doesn't mean.
> >
> > One more time; the judge throwing me out of court would be a
> > "government action." And yet, you claim the First Amendment would not
> > apply. I'm still waiting for you to defend that logic, you mud dumb
> > fucktard.
>
> Where does the First Amendment say that a judge cannot throw you out of
> court??
>
No, you fucking ignorant asshole, you asked the wrong fucking question,
as usual. The Constitution grants the government certain powers, and
charges them with protecting our rights. The judge's act of tossing me
out of court for demanding that he (as the government) reassert my
rights to be on that street corner is a de facto violation of my
fucking rights, you ignorant slut. Please explain to us how such an
over act against me reconciles with EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that YOU
YOURSELF posted, you ignorant fuck.
Seriously, YOU keep posting how the First Amendment protects me against
government actions that violate my rights. Such an act by a judge would
result in my right to stand on the street corner being denied. And yet
you keep on sitting there, for a COUPLE OF FUCKING YEARS, and
contradict yourself, saying that the judge can do that, and all is
well. Please explain, you ignorant fuck.
This isn't about a private citizen's actions. It's abou the resolution
of the action I take to reassert my right to stand on the PUBLIC street
corner. You seem to be a fucking assmunch, who thinks that calling the
cops and having the store owner arrested for assault is my only
recourse. The problem with that theory is that is flies in the face of
every article that you yourself post. I can take anyone to court that I
want; that in itself is not an action against that person, per se. The
act for or against a person is the DECISION that is made when I take
them to court. You got that?
You're an ignorant sod. Apparently, you have this impression that my
bringing suit, and naming the store owner in that suit, is somehow in
and of itself a punitive action against the store owner. Its not. And
the fact that you think it is, despite the fact that I have clarified
this for you repeatedly for YEARS, makes you the dumbest motherfucker
on Usenet. You're not only too stupid to know the basics about your own
country's Constitution, you're too fucking stupid to learn when someone
is trying to teach you something.
>
> > > > So, after a couple of YEARS of clarifying this for you, and you
> > > > ignoring the clarifications, I guess we can just assume you are too
> > > > fucking stupid to understand the most basic legal concepts.
> > >
> > > Irony anyone?
> >
> > In every one of your posts, fuckwit.
Including this one.
milt....@gmail.com
You realize I only do this for recreation every few months, just to see
if he's mud dumb enough to repeat the same ignorant shit over and over
again, right? I swear to God; I've seen a lot of stupid people on
Usenet -- hell, most of the right wing side would have a hard time
collecting enough IQ points to make one decent Forrest Gump clone --
but Canyon has to be the most exceptional case, because he not only
says the stupidest shit, but he's proud of himself for "figuring out"
the most ignorant crap, and then refuses to even question whether the
person he's talking to might have a point. He apparently thinks that,
by repeating ignorant shit more often, he'll make the shit less
ignorant.
It doesn't work, Canyon. It's still stupid, no matter how many times
you repeat it.
1. I have the right to legally pass out flyers on a PUBLIC sidewalk
2. The store owner has no right to enforce his own personal "law" on
the PUBLIC sidewalk.
3. I have several options for reasserting my right to pass out flyers,
one of which is asking the court (government) to intervene and enforce
my rights)
4. A judge (the government) who "laughs my case out of court" basically
is a government action that effectively results in an abrogation of my
right to pass out flyers on the street corner, and reinforces the store
owner's (nonexistent) "right" to move me off the sidewalk for passing
out flyers he doesn't like. This action, therefore, CONTRADICTS every
single thing you posted here, attempting to prove you're right.
And no matter how many times I point that out, you repeat the same
ignorant bullshit. It's funny, it's sad and if you were even a bit of a
decent guy, I would probably feel sorry for you by now.
But you're not, and I don't...
(Sorry to answer through your post, Gandalf...)
steven...@yahoo.com
Notice how Milt has stopped mentioning the First Amendment which he
first claimed he was going to use as a basis for suing the store owner
Apparently, the fact that the First Amendment does not apply to this
situation as leaked through the mud in Milt's brain....
steven...@yahoo.com
So let's understand this, Milt.. You seem to have totally abandoned
your claims about using the First Amendment as a basis of your suit.
I suppose that means that you've finally realized that ythe First
Amendment is not applicable under this scenario.. IOW, I've actually
managed to teach you something...
nevermore
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
Fluster and bluster all you want, Hanson, but the fact remains that:
Martin McPhillips
news:1140477022.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The First Amendment is applicable if the government
passes a law that is overly restrictive, a loitering
ordinance, for instance, that makes it difficult
to engage in political speech. The government can't
tell you, unreasonably, that you cannot use a sidewalk
to engage in a free speech activity.
In that case, you can challenge the ordinance
on First Amendment grounds.
The First Amendment doesn't apply *against*
private individuals because they don't make
laws. And the First Amendment is a restriction
on laws that limit free speech.
If an individual interferes with you while you
are engaging in free speech on the sidewalk, he
is harassing you or assaulting you, etc., and
can be charged under a criminal statute, and/or
restrained by an order to show cause, and can
be sued in a civil action for tortious interference
or something akin to that.
If Milt has a case *on* *point* that demonstrates
a First Amendement cause of action (not a
statutory or state constitutional cause of
action) against a private citizen, then he
should bring it forward in a cite and quote
it in pertinent part. It must be a case that
has been adjudicated to finality, or is not
under appeal, that reached at least to the
Federal Circuit level, but it would be better
if it had reached and been decided at the
Federal Appeals level.
And again, *on* *point.*
nevermore
...and Milt can't seem to get it through the dirt in his head that
even if a judge asserts or reasserts his first Amendment rights, it
can not and will not have any effect upon the private party who is not
bound nor inhibited in any way by the First Amendment....
milt....@gmail.com
Which is exactly what the state would be doing should a judge "laugh
you out of court," you stupid fucktard.
milt....@gmail.com
Here's the scenario again:
1. I'm handing out flyers on a street corner, obeying every other law
regarding such activity.
2. A nearby store owner decides he doesn't like what I'm passing out,
and gets a couple of people to forcibly remove me from the PUBLIC
SIDEWALK.
3. I take his ass to court and demand that said court reinforce my
First Amendment rights, and warn this guy to back off.
Now, according to Canyon, the judge would "laugh me out of court" for
bringing this guy to court. This is patently absurd, because the result
of such an action would in itself be a violation of my First Amendment
rights by the state.
How stupid are you people, really?
milt....@gmail.com
I haven't stopped mentioning it, you dishonesy t and stupid
motherfucker.
Without the First Amendment, you stupid fuckwit, I would have no basis
to make a claim that I had a right to use the sidewalk in the first
place. And when I take this knuckle dragging store owner to court, I'm
going to demand that the judge (the government) reassert my First
Amendment rights and order the guy to stay off my ass.
According to you, you rockheaded motherfucker, the judge (the
government) would "laugh me out of court," thus violating the very
protections all of your citations claim exist against government
interference in my right to free speech. In effect, such an act by the
judge would constitute interference with my rights.
Still waiting for you to reconcile this with your contradictory
statements that I am entitled to First Amendment protections against
government action. Of course, your knuckles are dragging so hard, you
can't think much...
milt....@gmail.com
nevermore wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:04:57 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ...and Milt can't seem to get it through the dirt in his head that
> even if a judge asserts or reasserts his first Amendment rights, it
> can not and will not have any effect upon the private party who is not
> bound nor inhibited in any way by the First Amendment....
It's amazing. He finally admitted he has no fucking clue what he's
talking about.
A judge is a representative of the government, you fucking retard. His
decision to "laugh me out of court" is a violation of my rights. The
store owner isn't bound by the First Amendment -- I never said
otherwise. But the JUDGE IS, you stupid fucking idiot! That's the part
you seem to conveniently ignore.
You really are the dumbest fuck in the history of Usenet, mainly
because you think you're smart.
steven...@yahoo.com
OK, so you're still trying to use the First Amendment... I just
wanted to be sure
And when I take this knuckle dragging store owner to court, I'm
> going to demand that the judge (the government) reassert my First
> Amendment rights and order the guy to stay off my ass.
OK, so let's say that the judge reassets your First Amendment rights..
which are.. that the government cannot interfere with your speech...
and let's say that you get this judge to actually go to the store
owner and tell him that the government may not interfere with your
speech... <LOL> ...and then what?
MikeSoja
>You two are completely, utterly retarded.
>Here's the scenario again:
>1. I'm handing out flyers on a street corner, obeying every other law
>regarding such activity.
>2. A nearby store owner decides he doesn't like what I'm passing out,
>and gets a couple of people to forcibly remove me from the PUBLIC
>SIDEWALK.
>3. I take his ass to court and demand that said court reinforce my
>First Amendment rights, and warn this guy to back off.
>Now, according to Canyon, the judge would "laugh me out of court" for
Well, I would certainly hope so, but one can't be too sure what kind
of idiot judge one might draw in this day and age.
Wouldn't you have a better chance of not being laughed out of court,
Milty, if you charged the store owner with assault? I mean, Canyon
has been flogging you with it for years it seems like, but you never
seem to come close to appreciating the fact that the store owner's
actions don't fall into the category of government's abridgement of
speech. Instead, what you moronically keep stating over and over is
that if the government refuses to uphold its assault statutes that
your freedom of speech has been abridged, and therefore it's a
freedom of speech issue. That's fucking nonsense, but, Milty, it's
you, baby.
Also, your use of the word "reinforce" is idiotic.
Mike Soja
milt....@gmail.com
Taking someone into court, or naming them in a lawsuit, is not
"charging" them with a fucking thing.
These retards fashion themselves as experts on politics and the law,
and yet they have no clue regarding the most basic concepts in our
system. I have the right to be on that street corner. The hearing would
be my demand that the government do their job and protect my right to
be on that street corner. The problem with you retards is, you see
lawsuits as punitive in and of themselves, while the only punitive act
against anyone would be the act of "laugh(ing) me out of court."
This thread demonstrates the collective stupidity of the right wing
better than almost anything I've seen in a while.
(BTW, you stupid motherfucker, "reinforce" and "enforce" have exactly
the same meaning in this context. Of course, you're too fucking stupid
to know that...
steven...@yahoo.com
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> You two are completely, utterly retarded.
>
> Here's the scenario again:
>
> 1. I'm handing out flyers on a street corner, obeying every other law
> regarding such activity.
> 2. A nearby store owner decides he doesn't like what I'm passing out,
> and gets a couple of people to forcibly remove me from the PUBLIC
> SIDEWALK.
> 3. I take his ass to court and demand that said court reinforce my
> First Amendment rights, and warn this guy to back off.
OK, since you're still claiming that your First Amendment rights are
being compromised here, I want you to explain the folowing:
where in the First Amendment does it say that you have a right to be in
front of this guys store?
where in the First Amendment does it say that this guy can't remove you
from in front of it?
nevermore
wrote:
Milt thinks the First Amendment says, "judges must enforce laws that
don't apply."
Martin McPhillips
news:1140487653.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You two are completely, utterly retarded.
>
> Here's the scenario again:
>
> 1. I'm handing out flyers on a street corner, obeying
> every other law
> regarding such activity.
> 2. A nearby store owner decides he doesn't like what I'm
> passing out,
> and gets a couple of people to forcibly remove me from the
> PUBLIC
> SIDEWALK.
> 3. I take his ass to court and demand that said court
> reinforce my
> First Amendment rights, and warn this guy to back off.
Well, Milt, you say you are a paralegal. Why don't you
go to findlaw or Westlaw and cite and quote in pertinent
part a case on point. Not a statutory or state constitution
case, just a case based solely on the First Amendment
with a holding against a private citizen who infringes
an individual's right to free speech in a public
place. Anything from the Federal Circuit courts?
Anything from the Federal Appeals Courts?
> Now, according to Canyon, the judge would "laugh me out of
> court" for
> bringing this guy to court. This is patently absurd,
> because the result
> of such an action would in itself be a violation of my
> First Amendment
> rights by the state.
>
> How stupid are you people, really?
Show the stupid people some law, Milt.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Yet you did when you failed to mention it in item #3. As we all know
you've stated that you would sue the owner under the 1st amendment.
But of course you also claimed that you would and wouldn't and then
someone else and then no one...its all rather confusing.
>Without the First Amendment, you stupid fuckwit, I would have no basis
>to make a claim that I had a right to use the sidewalk in the first
>place. And when I take this knuckle dragging store owner to court, I'm
>going to demand that the judge (the government) reassert my First
>Amendment rights and order the guy to stay off my ass.
And he would say, "Sorry Milt, the store owner can't violate the first
amendment. Next!" I would suggest you try battery and/or assault.
>According to you, you rockheaded motherfucker, the judge (the
>government) would "laugh me out of court," thus violating the very
>protections all of your citations claim exist against government
>interference in my right to free speech. In effect, such an act by the
>judge would constitute interference with my rights.
>
>Still waiting for you to reconcile this with your contradictory
>statements that I am entitled to First Amendment protections against
>government action. Of course, your knuckles are dragging so hard, you
>can't think much...
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
what a lawsuit is. You seem to think that it's some sort of punitive
actuion against someone. It's not. It's an attempt to resolve a
dispute. Obviously, I think I have the right to pass out flyers, and
it's clear the store owner thinks he can simply run me off the
sidewalk. I will go to court and ask for an order to get this guy to
cease trying to drive me off the sidewalk. According to Canyon, the
judge will "laugh me out of court."
Of course, the act of a judge "laugh(ing) me out of court would in
itself be a violation of my First Amendment rights, because it would
effectively acknowldge the store owner's "right" to run me off the
PUBLIC sidewalk. He has yet to explain that one...
MikeSoja
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 MikeSoja <mso...@newsguy.com> posted:
>>Wouldn't you have a better chance of not being laughed out of court,
>>Milty, if you charged the store owner with assault? I mean, Canyon
>>has been flogging you with it for years it seems like, but you never
>>seem to come close to appreciating the fact that the store owner's
>>actions don't fall into the category of government's abridgement of
>>speech. Instead, what you moronically keep stating over and over is
>>that if the government refuses to uphold its assault statutes that
>>your freedom of speech has been abridged, and therefore it's a
>>freedom of speech issue. That's fucking nonsense, but, Milty, it's
>>you, baby.
>>Also, your use of the word "reinforce" is idiotic.
>See, here's where these fuckwits demonstrate their retardation.
>Taking someone into court, or naming them in a lawsuit, is not
>"charging" them with a fucking thing.
>These retards fashion themselves as experts on politics and the law,
>and yet they have no clue regarding the most basic concepts in our
>system. I have the right to be on that street corner. The hearing would
>be my demand that the government do their job and protect my right to
>be on that street corner. The problem with you retards is, you see
>lawsuits as punitive in and of themselves, while the only punitive act
>against anyone would be the act of "laugh(ing) me out of court."
You don't have the right to commandeer a courtroom to inflict your
gibberish on the civil servants there, Milty. Being "laughed out"
of the place is far more kindness than you would deserve.
To reiterate: Stupid Milty is confusing the *motive* with the
*transgression*. He pretends to know *why* the shopkeeper is
dragging him away, but the "why" doesn't matter. In Milty's
ignorant world, he would sue the shopkeeper for infringing his First
Amendment rights no matter what crime was committed to that purpose,
up to and including murder. Conversely, if stupid Milty was
assaulted because the shopkeeper didn't like Milty's sexual
lifestyle or his ethnicity or his religion or any of the hundred
other odious things that adhere to Milty, then Milty would bring
suit based on the pertinent odious thing that Milty felt was
infringed, instead of just charging the shopkeeper with assault (the
crime committed.)
If that seems utterly ridiculous on Milty's part it is, but that's
what you get with lefty morons who can't distinguish between basic
concepts like "motive" and "the crime committed in service to the
motive".
Mike Soja
steven...@yahoo.com
Of course, the bottom line is that the First Amendment doesn't impact
what the store owner does anyway..
Milt's ignorance on this subject isn't unusual.. A lot of people have
heard the term "right to free speech" associated with the First
Amendment and assumed that it meant more than it did...
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> easily explained.... once again...where exactly in the First
Amendment does it say that the store owner *doesn't* have the right to
run you off the sidewalk, Milt?
milt....@gmail.com
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140487653.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > You two are completely, utterly retarded.
> >
> > Here's the scenario again:
> >
> > 1. I'm handing out flyers on a street corner, obeying
> > every other law
> > regarding such activity.
> > 2. A nearby store owner decides he doesn't like what I'm
> > passing out,
> > and gets a couple of people to forcibly remove me from the
> > PUBLIC
> > SIDEWALK.
> > 3. I take his ass to court and demand that said court
> > reinforce my
> > First Amendment rights, and warn this guy to back off.
>
> Well, Milt, you say you are a paralegal. Why don't you
> go to findlaw or Westlaw and cite and quote in pertinent
> part a case on point. Not a statutory or state constitution
> case, just a case based solely on the First Amendment
> with a holding against a private citizen who infringes
> an individual's right to free speech in a public
> place. Anything from the Federal Circuit courts?
> Anything from the Federal Appeals Courts?
I did that a long time ago. Ask Canyon to show them to you. One had to
do with a casino that was trying to oust protesters from the sidewalk
in front of their casino. You don't seem to get that Canyon has been
trying to make this same claim for years now, not just the last few
days...
>
> > Now, according to Canyon, the judge would "laugh me out of
> > court" for
> > bringing this guy to court. This is patently absurd,
> > because the result
> > of such an action would in itself be a violation of my
> > First Amendment
> > rights by the state.
> >
> > How stupid are you people, really?
>
> Show the stupid people some law, Milt.
I did. And I don't even have to. It should be common sense.
1. I'm passing out flyers legally on a PUBLIC sidewalk.
2. A store owner runs me off the PUBLIC sidewalk.
3. I go into court to get them to assert my First Amendment rights.
If the judge "laughs me out of court," he is, in fact, violating my
First Amendment rights, in coontradiction to what Canyon keeps postiing
ad nauseum.
This is not hard, folks.
SilentOtto
>
> > 2. The Store Owner has NO RIGHT to run me off the sidewalk.
>
> That's corrct...
>
> > 3. According to your scenario, the judge will "laugh me out of court."
>
> Absolutely, if you try to use the First amendment to get the store
> owner to stop...
> the
> First Amendment unless the State is does the suppressing. "
> -http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
>
> > a thing would constitute "government action' that you yourself is
> > prohibited by the First Amendment.
>
> review.
> -http://www.cla-net.org/resources/articles/minow_doyouallow.php
>
>
> > believe the store owner had a right to run me off the sidewalk, but I
> > have no right to pass out the flyers.
>
> which law applies to his actions, and: "It is, of course, a
> commonplace that the constitutional guarantee
> of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by
> government, federal or state." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB,
> 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
> -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
>
> > ignoring the clarifications, I guess we can just assume you are too
> > fucking stupid to understand the most basic legal concepts.
>
>
> > Do you get that the judge "laughing me out of court" would be exactly
> > the "government action" spoken about in pretty much all of your
> > examples? I'm presenting the court (government) with a demand that they
> > assert my right to free speech, and you're telling me the court will
> > take action that undermines that right. The effective result would be
> > that I no longer have the right to free speech on that corner, because
> > the store owner can run me off at will. Does that really sound correct
> > to you? Do you understand that the concept of justice is based on the
> > RESULT of a government action and not the mere act of asking the
> > government to intervene? Your problem, you mud-dumb shithead, is that
> > you think the lawsuit is an action in itself, against the store owner.
> > That is your mistake. It's not; it's a request for government action.
>
> -http://www.cla-net.org/resources/articles/minow_doyouallow.php
>
> > > > protection for all laws to the states, as well...)???
> > >
> > > yeah, Milt, your speech is protected against actions of states by the
> > > First amendment... but it doesn't protect you against actions by
> > > private citizens, as all the cites at the bottom show you...
> >
> > Again, you muddumb asshole...
> >
> > The judge telling me to fuck off is most definitely a government
> > action. You're too fucking stupid to understand that you're
> > contradicting yourself.
>
> -http://www.cla-net.org/resources/articles/minow_doyouallow.php
>
> > according to you, I have no recourse, because (according to you) the
>
> You might have recouse, I never said you had no recourse, you moron,
> it's just that whatever valid recouse you had does not involve the
> First Amendment unless the government is the one that is actually
> abridging your free speech....
>
> > government can't do anything about it. Read the First Amendment, you
> > dumb fuck.
>
> <LOL> Yeah, the prt we're talking about here says "Congress shall
> make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...]" Thats
> subsequently been
>
> I take him to court, and they HAVE to protect my right to
> > free speech. If the judge refuses, that's government action...
>
> <ROTFLMAO> The judghe isn't abridging your rights, Milt, he's only
> saying "hey, you dumb ass, The First Amendment isn't applicable here,
> why not use a law that is?"
>
> > Jesus Christ, you are simply too stupid to be believed. And so fucking
> > proud of it, too!!
> >
> > >
> > > > > ...the question here is whether Milt is just being dishonest, or if he
> > > > > is actually stupid enough to believe that by asserting that our
> > > > > governments protects their citizens from the actions of other citizens
> > > > > proves that it is the First Amendment that provides the power to so
> > > > > do?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm guessing that Milt *is* just that stupid.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of someone trying to legally pass out flyers on the street
> > > > corner, and who is stopped by another citizen, please explain the
> > > > exception you claim is carved out of the First Amendment, and
> > > > apparently none of the others...
> > > > >
> > > > > "It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
> > > > > free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> > > > > federal or state." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507
> > > > > (1976)
> > > > > -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
> > > >
> > > > judge's "laugh(ing) the case out of court would in itself be an
> > > > abridgement of your free speech rights. So which is it? Are you
> > > > dishonest or stupid. I'm gonna say both.
> > >
> > > Judges routrinely toss out claims that have no basis in the law.... A
> > > First Amendment based claim against a private citizen has no basis in
> > > law because you cannot use the First Amendmen to against a private
> > > citizen because the First Amendment doesn't restrict the actions of a
> > > private citizen...
> > >
> > > > > "The First Amendment applies only to government action, not the
> > > > > actions of a private person or corporation."
> > > > > -http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ahhh, Milt claims he's refuted the experts... of course he hasn't
> > > because he can't..
> > >
> > > Instead of refuting, Milt just snips.... It's all back at the bottom
> > > of this post, though..
>
> ...and all those cites tell you that the First Amendment only applies
> to govrnment suppression of speech, you poor dimbulb... You have to
> be extra stupid even to get through high school without learning that
> the Bill of Rights was put forth to limit the powers of government, not
> private citizens.... but Milt actually got through college without
> learning that.... and now he parades his ignorance around for
> everyone to see....
>
> > And it's in the previous post, too, you dumb fuck.
> >
> > Please, show me one cite which supports your contention that, should a
> > judge "laugh me out of court" and I choose to appeal, the Appeals Court
> > upholds the judge's summary judgment...
>
> You're never going to get that far with a First Amendment based suit,
> Milt. since the First Amendment doesn't address the actions of a
> Private citizen... never has, never will... If you want to take
> *ANY* action against private citizens, it will have to be based on
> something other than the First Amendment....
That's funny...
I can think of a number of examples where the government has prosecuted
private citizens for violating another citizens civil rights.
The trial related to the murders of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman
and James Chaney in 1964 springs immediately to mind.
Nineteen men involved in the conspiracy were arrested and charged with
violating the civil rights of the three men who were murdered.
They were tried in federal court.
Seven of the conspirators were convicted.
How do you square that with your theory that "First Amendment doesn't
address the actions of a
Private citizen"?
.
nevermore
...and Milt's current version is that the judge would be violating his
First Amendment rights by not forcing the store owner stop doing
something that doesn't violate any First Amendment rights....
steven...@yahoo.com
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > Show the stupid people some law, Milt.
>
> I did. And I don't even have to. It should be common sense.
>
> 1. I'm passing out flyers legally on a PUBLIC sidewalk.
> 2. A store owner runs me off the PUBLIC sidewalk.
> 3. I go into court to get them to assert my First Amendment rights.
...and when the judge asks Milt where in the First Amendment is the
part that says this store owner can't run him off the sudewalk, Milt
will reply that it "should be common sense."
That will impress the judge about as much as it impresses Usenet
people...
steven...@yahoo.com
SilentOtto wrote:
>
> I can think of a number of examples where the government has prosecuted
> private citizens for violating another citizens civil rights.
>
> The trial related to the murders of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman
> and James Chaney in 1964 springs immediately to mind.
>
> Nineteen men involved in the conspiracy were arrested and charged with
> violating the civil rights of the three men who were murdered.
>
> They were tried in federal court.
>
> Seven of the conspirators were convicted.
>
> How do you square that with your theory that "First Amendment doesn't
> address the actions of a
> Private citizen"?
<LOL> ...and what did any of that do with the First Amendment, ya
moron? .
Martin McPhillips
news:1140539479....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well, then, you should have your cites at the ready,
so that you won't have to do 150 posts on the subject
*and* you can win the argument again.
So, you're a paralegal, go retrieve the cites.
>>
>> > Now, according to Canyon, the judge would "laugh me out
>> > of
>> > court" for
>> > bringing this guy to court. This is patently absurd,
>> > because the result
>> > of such an action would in itself be a violation of my
>> > First Amendment
>> > rights by the state.
>> >
>> > How stupid are you people, really?
>>
>> Show the stupid people some law, Milt.
>
> I did. And I don't even have to. It should be common
> sense.
Let's see the case law.
>
> 1. I'm passing out flyers legally on a PUBLIC sidewalk.
> 2. A store owner runs me off the PUBLIC sidewalk.
> 3. I go into court to get them to assert my First
> Amendment rights.
>
> If the judge "laughs me out of court," he is, in fact,
> violating my
> First Amendment rights, in coontradiction to what Canyon
> keeps postiing
> ad nauseum.
>
> This is not hard, folks.
So, show the folks some case law. End the argument
in your favor.
SilentOtto
Well...
Since you're not very bright, I suppose I'll have to explain it to you.
You wrote:
"You're never going to get that far with a First Amendment based suit,
Milt. since the First Amendment doesn't address the actions of a
Private citizen... never has, never will... If you want to take
*ANY* action against private citizens, it will have to be based on
something other than the First Amendment.... "
The First Ammendment, the right to free speech, is a civil right.
I provided you with examples where civil rights were enforced against
private citizens by the Federal government.
The First ammendment isn't any different from any other civil right,
and the Federal government can indeed enforce it against a private
citizen if it chooses to do so.
Undersand dummy?
Are you seriously going to try and maintain that civil rights under the
First ammendment are fundimentally different from the civil rights
under other ammendments?
I know you rightards hate to admit that you're wrong, but you wouldn't
be the first one to show what an idiot asshole you are by clinging to a
stupid premise.
Martin McPhillips
news:1140558145....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Examples? You have examples of the First Amendment right
being enforced on behalf of individuals against private
individuals? Let's see them. Cite to the cases and quote
them in pertinent part.
SilentOtto
Explain how civil rights under the First ammendment are different from
civil righths under other ammendments.
Take all the space you need.
steven...@yahoo.com
SilentOtto wrote:
> steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > SilentOtto wrote:
> > >
> > > I can think of a number of examples where the government has prosecuted
> > > private citizens for violating another citizens civil rights.
> > >
> > > The trial related to the murders of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman
> > > and James Chaney in 1964 springs immediately to mind.
> > >
> > > Nineteen men involved in the conspiracy were arrested and charged with
> > > violating the civil rights of the three men who were murdered.
> > >
> > > They were tried in federal court.
> > >
> > > Seven of the conspirators were convicted.
> > >
> > > How do you square that with your theory that "First Amendment doesn't
> > > address the actions of a
> > > Private citizen"?
> >
> >
> > <LOL> ...and what did any of that do with the First Amendment, ya
> > moron? .
>
> Well...
>
> Since you're not very bright, I suppose I'll have to explain it to you.
iromy anyone..
> You wrote:
>
> "You're never going to get that far with a First Amendment based suit,
> Milt. since the First Amendment doesn't address the actions of a
> Private citizen... never has, never will... If you want to take
> *ANY* action against private citizens, it will have to be based on
> something other than the First Amendment.... "
>
> The First Ammendment, the right to free speech, is a civil right.
>
> I provided you with examples where civil rights were enforced against
> private citizens by the Federal government.
The Federal government enforces lots of laws, but when they do it, the
law they enforcis one that applies to the case at hanbd, you moron...
What you've said is, ineffect that because some little town enforces a
speeding law against speeders, they can also "enforce" the law
prohibiting rape on a young woman for running a red light...
> The First ammendment isn't any different from any other civil right,
> and the Federal government can indeed enforce it against a private
> citizen if it chooses to do so.
<LOL> The First Amendment is indeed quite different from other laws
that prohibit individuals from doing something in that it only
prohibits the government from doing soming...
> Undersand dummy?
I undersand (sic) that you're a moron....
> Are you seriously going to try and maintain that civil rights under the
> First ammendment are fundimentally different from the civil rights
> under other ammendments?
<ROTFLMAO> Apparently you haven't actually read any of the Bill of
rights... They mean what they say, not what you morons want them to
say...
> I know you rightards hate to admit that you're wrong, but you wouldn't
> be the first one to show what an idiot asshole you are by clinging to a
> stupid premise.
Irony anyone?
Martin McPhillips
Right. All of the Bill of Rights rights are
restrictions on government, not on private
citizens.
Now, bring a cite from the case law where
the First Amendment is enforced against
a private citizen. That's all the
explainin' that needs to be done.
steven...@yahoo.com
The "civil right" you refer to is specifically the right not to have
the government abridge your speech.....
The first ten amendments are called the bill of rights and speak
directly, specifically and exclusivly to the limitation of governmental
powers.... there is not a single element of the Bill of Rights that
limits or prohibits any actions of private citizens, other than the
reference to civil lawuits in the seventh and even that is a limitation
on governmental powers
You really should have learned all this in grade school, and since you
didn't it's probably better if you remain silent.
MikeSoja
posted:
>I can think of a number of examples where the government has prosecuted
>private citizens for violating another citizens civil rights.
Then why, as an example, did you pick a case where the "private
citizens" were prosecuted only because three of their
co-conspirators were members of Mississippi law enforcement.
>The trial related to the murders of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman
>and James Chaney in 1964 springs immediately to mind.
>Nineteen men involved in the conspiracy were arrested and charged with
>violating the civil rights of the three men who were murdered.
The nineteen men were charged with conspiracy to deny due process to
the three murdered civil rights activists. The Supreme Court
reversal that kicked the case forward is here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/sctdecision.html
Read it.
You'll notice the words "under color of law" in several places.
Those words refer to the actions taken by persons representing the
state, as opposed to persons of the "private" persuasion.
The Supremes plainly state: "As we have consistently held 'The
Fourteenth Amendment protects the individual against state action,
not against wrongs done by individuals.'"
>They were tried in federal court.
>Seven of the conspirators were convicted.
>How do you square that with your theory that "First Amendment doesn't
>address the actions of a Private citizen"?
I fail to square your inanities with anything.
Milty's theory is still a cracked marble littering the tenement
foyer of his mind.
Mike Soja
MikeSoja
<steven...@yahoo.com> posted:
>Of course, the bottom line is that the First Amendment doesn't impact
>what the store owner does anyway..
>Milt's ignorance on this subject isn't unusual.. A lot of people have
>heard the term "right to free speech" associated with the First
>Amendment and assumed that it meant more than it did...
Milty seems to have dropped out of the discussion.
I wonder if he thinks he's running away so fast the shotgun blast
won't hit him in the ass.
Mike Soja
MikeSoja
posted:
>You don't have the right to commandeer a courtroom to inflict your
>gibberish on the civil servants there, Milty. Being "laughed out"
>of the place is far more kindness than you would deserve.
>To reiterate: Stupid Milty is confusing the *motive* with the
>*transgression*. He pretends to know *why* the shopkeeper is
>dragging him away, but the "why" doesn't matter. In Milty's
>ignorant world, he would sue the shopkeeper for infringing his First
>Amendment rights no matter what crime was committed to that purpose,
>up to and including murder. Conversely, if stupid Milty was
>assaulted because the shopkeeper didn't like Milty's sexual
>lifestyle or his ethnicity or his religion or any of the hundred
>other odious things that adhere to Milty, then Milty would bring
>suit based on the pertinent odious thing that Milty felt was
>infringed, instead of just charging the shopkeeper with assault (the
>crime committed.)
>If that seems utterly ridiculous on Milty's part it is, but that's
>what you get with lefty morons who can't distinguish between basic
>concepts like "motive" and "the crime committed in service to the
>motive".
<cricket.wav>
Where'd Milty go????
Mike Soja
steven...@yahoo.com
He's trying to rationalize the fact that the First Amendment neither
grants hin any right other then being protected from government
actions, nor inhibits, in any way, the store owner from taking his
fliers and stuffing them up his ass.
>
> Mike Soja
2275 Dead
wrote:
Perhaps he works for a living -- something you obviously don't do.
Or maybe he doesn't play your silly little troll games.
>
>
>
>
>Mike Soja
--
"'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
Are you going to sit there and posit that, if I'm standing on a street
corner, legally handing out flyers, and a private citizen runs me off
the PUBLIC sidewalk, there is NO RECOURSE? Of course there is! And
every action I may take must begin with the premise that I have a right
to be there in the first place.
Man, I have to tell you; this is demonstrating just how retarded the
wingnuts in here truly are...
milt....@gmail.com
Which is exactly what the judge (government) would be doing, if he
threw my ass out of court. He'd be saying, "I can't stop this guy from
running you off a public sidewalk; I can't protect your right to free
speech."
The fact is, he would probably issue a restraining order, and it would
be based on the fact that I have the right to be on that public
sidewalk, handing out flyers. If I didn't have that right -- say I was
on public property -- I would have no right to be there, and therefore,
no restraining order. (BTW, you dumb motherfucker, that is what those
articles you keep quoting say, if you'd bother to have an adult explain
them to you. You have no First Amendment rights on private property,
and against a private individual or entity. You do, however have them
on a public sidewalk, when all other regulations are complied with.)
>
> The first ten amendments are called the bill of rights and speak
> directly, specifically and exclusivly to the limitation of governmental
> powers.... there is not a single element of the Bill of Rights that
> limits or prohibits any actions of private citizens, other than the
> reference to civil lawuits in the seventh and even that is a limitation
> on governmental powers
Oh, really? So, a private individual can lock you up against your will
in a cage?
The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government power. It is also a
statement of rights that each person is entitled to, and look closely;
the government is also charged with protecting them. (Read the
Fourteenth Amendment for a clue)
> You really should have learned all this in grade school, and since you
> didn't it's probably better if you remain silent.
Like I said; a little bit of irony in every one of your posts, Canyon...
steven...@yahoo.com
No, Milt, he'd be saying that your First Amendment rights have never
been abridged because the government has not interfered with you, and
if you want this fellow to leave you alone, you'll need to find a law
that applies...
> The fact is, he would probably issue a restraining order, and it would
> be based on the fact that I have the right to be on that public
> sidewalk, handing out flyers. If I didn't have that right -- say I was
> on public property -- I would have no right to be there, and therefore,
> no restraining order. (BTW, you dumb motherfucker, that is what those
> articles you keep quoting say, if you'd bother to have an adult explain
> them to you. You have no First Amendment rights on private property,
> and against a private individual or entity. You do, however have them
> on a public sidewalk, when all other regulations are complied with.)
> >
> > The first ten amendments are called the bill of rights and speak
> > directly, specifically and exclusivly to the limitation of governmental
> > powers.... there is not a single element of the Bill of Rights that
> > limits or prohibits any actions of private citizens, other than the
> > reference to civil lawuits in the seventh and even that is a limitation
> > on governmental powers
>
> Oh, really? So, a private individual can lock you up against your will
> in a cage?
Milt, Milt, of course a private individual cannot lock you up against
your will in a cage, but it's not because of the Bill of Rights that he
can't do it.
I'll repeat this just for you Milt... there is not a single element
of the Bill of Rights that
limits or prohibits any actions of private citizens, other than the
reference to civil lawuits in the seventh and even that is a limitation
on governmental powers....
Now you behave yourself until I get back from Brazil next week....
SilentOtto
Then explain how the government has prosecuted private individuals for
violating the civil rights of another, Dummy.
According to you, that's a legal impossibility.
Yet, history show's you're wrong.
SilentOtto
What a load of crap...
However...
Tell me what specific law the government was enforcing when they put
private citizens on trial for violating the civil rights of another in
the example I provided.
> > The First ammendment isn't any different from any other civil right,
> > and the Federal government can indeed enforce it against a private
> > citizen if it chooses to do so.
>
> <LOL> The First Amendment is indeed quite different from other laws
> that prohibit individuals from doing something in that it only
> prohibits the government from doing soming...
No it isn't.
Else people wouldn't have been prosecuted for violating anothers civil
rights.
> > Undersand dummy?
>
> I undersand (sic) that you're a moron....
You're doing a lot of dancing, but you're not answering the question.
Could it be because you're full of shit?
I think the answer is yes.
> > Are you seriously going to try and maintain that civil rights under the
> > First ammendment are fundimentally different from the civil rights
> > under other ammendments?
>
> <ROTFLMAO> Apparently you haven't actually read any of the Bill of
> rights... They mean what they say, not what you morons want them to
> say...
Sure I have.
But, apparently the U.S. Supreme Court thinks the Bill of Rights means
something different that what you believe, else they wouldn't allow
prosecution of private individuals for civil rights violations.
But they do...
So you're wrong.
It's not rocket science, Dummy.
> > I know you rightards hate to admit that you're wrong, but you wouldn't
> > be the first one to show what an idiot asshole you are by clinging to a
> > stupid premise.
>
> Irony anyone?
It would be ironic were I wrong.
But until you explain how the Federal government can prosecute priviate
citizens for civil rights violations if the Bill of Rights only refers
to limits on government, then you're the one who's wrong.
Idiot...
SilentOtto
Then explain how the government is able to prosecute private
individuals for violating anothers civil rights.
I've provided an example where they did so.
> Now, bring a cite from the case law where
> the First Amendment is enforced against
> a private citizen. That's all the
> explainin' that needs to be done.
First you need to explain why civil rights guarnteed under the first
ammendment are different from those guarnteed under other ammendments.
Martin McPhillips
They aren't. All of the rights in the Bill
of Rights are restrictions on the power of
government, not on private individuals.
In other words, they are guarantees to
citizens over and against the power of
government. That is their purpose.
Now, bring forward your cite from case law
Martin McPhillips
news:1140604553....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, Milt, no one has ever said you have no
recourse if you are harassed or threatened or
assaulted and forced to leave a public place
by a private individual.
> Man, I have to tell you; this is demonstrating just how
> retarded the
> wingnuts in here truly are..
Then you'll be back in just a moment with
some case law showing how a private citizen
can have a First Amendment cause of action
against another private citizen.
For a high-powered paralegal like you that
should be a snap.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
He has never said that Milt. No one, to my knowlege, has ever said
that.
>Of course there is! And
>every action I may take must begin with the premise that I have a right
>to be there in the first place.
>
>Man, I have to tell you; this is demonstrating just how retarded the
>wingnuts in here truly are...
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
He says that a judge would "laugh me out of court," Jeffrey.
In other words, no orders to the police to arrest this guy, no warnings
not to let it happen again... nothing.
IOW, you two are too stupid to understand the implications of what you
are positing.
And I have to laugh at the phrase "To my knowledge" coming from
Jeffrey...
milt....@gmail.com
He can't, because they're not. But he'll say they are...
milt....@gmail.com
gone on for more than two years.
But the existence of case law would indicate a CONTROVERSY. The lack of
case law is not necessarily an indication that you're correct.
IOW, why don't you present a case in which a private citizen was told
he had a right to run another citizen off a PUBLIC sidewalk, when no
other laws were being violated.
Martin McPhillips
news:1140622181.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do you have some case law, Milt, showing where
a private individual has a valid cause of
action under the First Amendment against
another private individual?
> In other words, no orders to the police to arrest this
> guy, no warnings
> not to let it happen again... nothing.
Sure, Milt, the court could order the police to
arrest the guy for harassment or assault and/or
place a restraining order on him.
But those would be matters under typical
criminal codes.
The First Amendment would enter into the
case only if the city government had
the police remove you from the corner,
because the First Amendment is a restraint
on government.
> IOW, you two are too stupid to understand the implications
> of what you
> are positing.
Well, you can always show the stupid people
some case law, Milt. Make it on point, cite
it, and quote it in pertinent part where it
holds that a private citizen has a First
milt....@gmail.com
You have top be the thickest moron on USENET.
Do I, or do I NOT, Have a right to be on the sidewalk handing out
flyers?
If I do, (and I would really LOVE to see you explain why I would not!).
Now, I DO have the right to pass out the flyers. And the judge refusing
to assert my right would be a case of the GOVERNMENT abridging my right
to free speech.
I would really love for you to cite for us any case law that says that
the store owner has a right to run anyone he wants off a public
sidewalk, and that his right to do so usurps my clearly stated right to
stand on that street corner and pass out flyers.
>
> > The fact is, he would probably issue a restraining order, and it would
> > be based on the fact that I have the right to be on that public
> > sidewalk, handing out flyers. If I didn't have that right -- say I was
> > on public property -- I would have no right to be there, and therefore,
> > no restraining order. (BTW, you dumb motherfucker, that is what those
> > articles you keep quoting say, if you'd bother to have an adult explain
> > them to you. You have no First Amendment rights on private property,
> > and against a private individual or entity. You do, however have them
> > on a public sidewalk, when all other regulations are complied with.)
> > >
> > > The first ten amendments are called the bill of rights and speak
> > > directly, specifically and exclusivly to the limitation of governmental
> > > powers.... there is not a single element of the Bill of Rights that
> > > limits or prohibits any actions of private citizens, other than the
> > > reference to civil lawuits in the seventh and even that is a limitation
> > > on governmental powers
> >
> > Oh, really? So, a private individual can lock you up against your will
> > in a cage?
>
> Milt, Milt, of course a private individual cannot lock you up against
> your will in a cage, but it's not because of the Bill of Rights that he
> can't do it.
Jesus, your'e stupid.
>
> I'll repeat this just for you Milt... there is not a single element
> of the Bill of Rights that
> limits or prohibits any actions of private citizens, other than the
> reference to civil lawuits in the seventh and even that is a limitation
> on governmental powers....
You dumbass...
>
> Now you behave yourself until I get back from Brazil next week....
Yeah, Brazil... sure...
Martin McPhillips
news:1140622268.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Actually, Milt, I've already said, twice now, that
the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights
are all rights guaranteed over and against government.
They are prohibitions on government action, not
on the actions of private citizens.
For instance, the government cannot prohibit
you from engaging in the free exercise of your religion
Now, what you need to do is come up with a cite
from case law that is on point showing how
one private citizen has a First Amendement
cause of action against another private
citizen.
You see, if there is no law prohibiting you
from handing out leaflets, you have no First
Amendment issue. If a store owner harasses
you, or intimidates you, or physically
assaults you because he doesn't want you
in front of his store, then he has harassed
or assaulted you. It's illegal for him
to do that to you no matter what you are
doing, if what you are doing is not against
the law.
You don't have a First Amendment cause of
action against him. You have a criminal
cause of action. A judge can issue a show
cause order, a restraining order, and you
can sue the store owner for damages if you've
suffered any. But you've never shown a single
cite where you would have a First Amendement
cause of action. That's because the First
Amendment is a prohibition on government.
You seem so certain of your argument here, surely
there must be abundant case law that backs
you up. Or could it be that you are now simply
fighting a rear guard action against the facts?
Martin McPhillips
news:1140622567.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I posted these cases a long time ago. The seeds of this
>thread have
> gone on for more than two years.
Milt, if you "posted these case a long time ago,"
just post them again.
> But the existence of case law would indicate a
> CONTROVERSY. The lack of
> case law is not necessarily an indication that you're
> correct.
Ahem. Milt, you've said that a private individual can
have a First Amendment cause of action against another
private individual. If that is the case, then you would
have case law that would show it.
> IOW, why don't you present a case in which a private
> citizen was told
> he had a right to run another citizen off a PUBLIC
> sidewalk, when no
> other laws were being violated.
But no one has claimed that a citizen has a right
to run another citizen off a public sidewalk.
It's been pointed out to you that that would
constitute harassment or assault, for whatever
reason the action was taken.
The issue here is whether the person harmed
has a First Amendment cause of action against
the person who harmed him. You've made that
claim, and you don't appear to be able to
back it up. That's very surprising for a
high-powered paralegal.
You've made the claim that a private citizen can
have a First Amendment cause of action against
another private citizen. The burden is on you.
milt....@gmail.com
And yet, the idiot you're supporting says that a judge (the government)
would laugh me out of court should I demand that the government
reassert my first amendment rights.
>
> For instance, the government cannot prohibit
> you from engaging in the free exercise of your religion
>
No, but if someone comes running into your church and disrupts
services, you can go to court and get an order to keep him out.
> Now, what you need to do is come up with a cite
> from case law that is on point showing how
> one private citizen has a First Amendement
> cause of action against another private
> citizen.
I did that a long time ago, but you know what? I don't have to do that.
It's common sense.
1. I have the right to be on the street corner passing out flyers.
2. Some guy runs me off that street corner.
3. I go to court and demand an order to keep him from doing it again.
According to Canyon, the judge would "laugh me out of court." There's
just one problem with that theory; the judge's action would be a
violation of my right to free speech.
Do you really need a citation for that? Why would you think there would
be one? Can you imagine any judge "laughing someone out of court" and
an appeals court saying the judge was right to do so?
>
> You see, if there is no law prohibiting you
> from handing out leaflets, you have no First
> Amendment issue.
I do if some guy runs me off the sidewalk and a JUDGE refuses to order
him to stop!!!
Jesus!
> If a store owner harasses
> you, or intimidates you, or physically
> assaults you because he doesn't want you
> in front of his store, then he has harassed
> or assaulted you.
Dumbass.
Think a little, will you?
WHY would it be assault or harassment?
If I was standing on his front lawn, it would be neither harassment nor
assault. Why? It's because I don;t have a First Amendment right to
stand on his front lawn and hand out flyers. For Chrissakes; a case
like this is BASED on the First Amendment.
> It's illegal for him
> to do that to you no matter what you are
> doing, if what you are doing is not against
> the law.
No, it's not illegal for him to do it on private property. If I was
standing inside his store, he could throw me out, and he would be
within his rights. The difference is my First Amendment rights.
> You don't have a First Amendment cause of
> action against him.
WTF is this fascination with the word "against" in all of this. I'm
going to take him to court, and I'm going to demand an order keeping
him from doing it again. Are you seriously going to side with a moron
who says the judge will "laugh me out of court"??
> You have a criminal
> cause of action. A judge can issue a show
> cause order, a restraining order, and you
> can sue the store owner for damages if you've
> suffered any.
WAIT! He can issue a restraining order? HUH? And that would be based on
what, exactly? Come on... you can think about it. Why would I likely
get a restraining order???
It would be because I have the right to be there, and he has no right
to run me off..
Wouldn't it?
> But you've never shown a single
> cite where you would have a First Amendement
> cause of action. That's because the First
> Amendment is a prohibition on government.
Yep, it is. It' prohibits the judge from laughing me out of court when
I ask him to stop this asshole from running me off a public sidewalk,
based on the fact that I have the right to be there...
>
> You seem so certain of your argument here, surely
> there must be abundant case law that backs
> you up. Or could it be that you are now simply
> fighting a rear guard action against the facts?
First of all, I have presented some case law. But it's not necessary,
because this is so cut and dried. There won't be much, because it's not
a controversy. If I'm on private property, I have no case. If I'm on
public property, not only do I have a case, butthe judge (government)
would be effectively abridging my right to free speech by telling me to
piss off.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
That he did, and I agree. But no one has claimed that you had no
recourse.
>In other words, no orders to the police to arrest this guy, no warnings
>not to let it happen again... nothing.
How can you arrest a private citizen for abridging the First
Amendment? How can a private citizen abrdige the First in the first
place?
>IOW, you two are too stupid to understand the implications of what you
>are positing.
I think everyone BUT you understands it quite well.
>And I have to laugh at the phrase "To my knowledge" coming from
>Jeffrey...
Laugh away Milt. In the meantime please post someone saying you had
no recourse.
Martin McPhillips
news:1140625205.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
But the government isn't prohibiting you from
using your First Amendment rights, and its
the government that is restricted by the
First Amendment. The store owner could harass
you for any number of reasons and it will
always be harassment, whatever his reason.
You have never shown where you would have
a First Amendment cause of action against him.
I invite you again to bring forward the case
law that would show that you do.
>>
>> For instance, the government cannot prohibit
>> you from engaging in the free exercise of your religion
>>
> No, but if someone comes running into your church and
> disrupts
> services, you can go to court and get an order to keep him
> out.
Same with your business, or your football stadium,
or your kennel club.
It's not a First Amendment cause of action.
Some guy running into a church to disrupt it
is not making a law against the free exercise
of religion. He is simply committing the
crime of criminal trespass.
>> Now, what you need to do is come up with a cite
>> from case law that is on point showing how
>> one private citizen has a First Amendement
>> cause of action against another private
>> citizen.
>
> I did that a long time ago, but you know what? I don't
> have to do that.
> It's common sense.
It's not "common sense," Milt.
If you cited to on point cases "a long time ago"
you need to bring the cites and quote the cases
in pertinent part.
> 1. I have the right to be on the street corner passing out
> flyers.
> 2. Some guy runs me off that street corner.
> 3. I go to court and demand an order to keep him from
> doing it again.
Yeah, you can get a restraining order to prevent him
from interferring with you in a place that the public
is allowed to be, for whatever reason you are there
and for whatever reason hed wants you not there.
That doesn't show where you would have a cause
of action under the First Amendement, which is
your protection against the state not letting
you be there.
But you can always use your high-powered position
as a paralegal to find some case law that supports
your claim.
milt....@gmail.com
McFly, you are a wonder.
One last time:
If I am standing on a street corner handing out flyers, I have a cause
of action, because I have a right to stand on the corner and hand out
flyers.
If I was standing inside his store, I would have no cause of action,
because I have no right to be standing in his store handing out flyers.
Now, think about it. What is the difference exactly?
Where does the harassment claim come from? The First Amendment.
Where does the assault claim come from? The First Amendment.
You see (I'm being hopeful here), if I have no right to be there in the
first place, then there is no assault, there is no harassment. So,
EVERYTHING derives from the fact that I have a right to pass out flyers
on the corner. The FIRST Amendment.
>
> I invite you again to bring forward the case
> law that would show that you do.
Marty, seriously... this is one of those things that is too fucking
elementary for anyone with the slightest clue about the law; there
isn't a lot of case law on it, because most people with IQs above 30
understand it.
Put it this way; I could have the store owner charged with assault --
even you agree on that. Yet, if I was inside his store, and he
physically carries me out to the street, I cannot have him charged with
assault. What's the difference?
Trust me, if I take this asshole to court, I WILL get an order telling
him to stop, because the judge has to give me one. The First Amendment
demands it.
>
> >>
> >> For instance, the government cannot prohibit
> >> you from engaging in the free exercise of your religion
> >>
> > No, but if someone comes running into your church and
> > disrupts
> > services, you can go to court and get an order to keep him
> > out.
>
> Same with your business, or your football stadium,
> or your kennel club.
Uh huh. But not the public sidewalk.
>
> It's not a First Amendment cause of action.
>
> Some guy running into a church to disrupt it
> is not making a law against the free exercise
> of religion. He is simply committing the
> crime of criminal trespass.
Of course, if the police refuse to arrest him, or a judge refuses to
grant a restraining order telling him to stay out of the church, the
cops or that judge are effectively making a law telling him it's okay,
and thus restricting your free exercise of religion.
>
> >> Now, what you need to do is come up with a cite
> >> from case law that is on point showing how
> >> one private citizen has a First Amendement
> >> cause of action against another private
> >> citizen.
> >
> > I did that a long time ago, but you know what? I don't
> > have to do that.
> > It's common sense.
>
> It's not "common sense," Milt.
Yeah it is.
>
> If you cited to on point cases "a long time ago"
> you need to bring the cites and quote the cases
> in pertinent part.
No, I don't. You can go look them up yourself. What I'm stating is
common knowledge. YOU are the one telling us the judge will "laugh me
out of court" if I demend an order keeping this guy away from me next
time. See the scenario below, and cite the case law that would give the
judge the authority to "laugh me out of court."
>
> > 1. I have the right to be on the street corner passing out
> > flyers.
> > 2. Some guy runs me off that street corner.
> > 3. I go to court and demand an order to keep him from
> > doing it again.
>
> Yeah, you can get a restraining order to prevent him
> from interferring with you in a place that the public
> is allowed to be, for whatever reason you are there
> and for whatever reason hed wants you not there.
Which means you agree with me.
>
> That doesn't show where you would have a cause
> of action under the First Amendement, which is
> your protection against the state not letting
> you be there.
>
My cause of action would be based on my right to be there. If I have no
right to be there, there is no cause of action. My right to be there is
derived from the First Amendment.
> But you can always use your high-powered position
> as a paralegal to find some case law that supports
> your claim.
I did. Go look it up. I'm not your fucking nanny, McFly...
Martin McPhillips
news:1140631698.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140625205.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >> from case law that is on point showing how
>> >> one private citizen has a First Amendement
>> >> cause of action against another private
>> >> citizen.
>> >
>> > I did that a long time ago, but you know what? I don't
>> > have to do that.
>> > It's common sense.
>>
>> It's not "common sense," Milt.
>
> Yeah it is.
No it is not, Milt.
But that's beside the point.
Where are your cites of on point case law?
You're a high-powered paralegal, aren't you?
>>
>> If you cited to on point cases "a long time ago"
>> you need to bring the cites and quote the cases
>> in pertinent part.
>
> No, I don't. You can go look them up yourself.
That's not my job, Milt.
Obviously, Milt, you don't have anything
to back you up, except your "common sense" that
a restriction on the law-making power of
government can become a cause of action
against a private citizen.
Your refusal to support your claim demonstrates
that you're just wasting everyone's time.
But then there's nothing new there, either.
milt....@gmail.com
<snip>
> >> Actually, Milt, I've already said, twice now, that
> >> the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights
> >> are all rights guaranteed over and against government.
> >> They are prohibitions on government action, not
> >> on the actions of private citizens.
> >
> > And yet, the idiot you're supporting says that a judge
> > (the government)
> > would laugh me out of court should I demand that the
> > government
> > reassert my first amendment rights.
>
> But the government isn't prohibiting you from
> using your First Amendment rights, and its
> the government that is restricted by the
> First Amendment. The store owner could harass
> you for any number of reasons and it will
> always be harassment, whatever his reason.
But he can't harass me if I don't have a right to be there in the first
place. That right is derived from the First Amendment.
>
> You have never shown where you would have
> a First Amendment cause of action against him.
You really have no clue about any of this, do you?
Last time:
If I am on a PUBLIC sidewalk, and obeying all other laws, and he runs
me off the sidewalk, I have an action against him, for the same reason
it would be considered harassment or assault, which you admit.
This is what's fascinating about this; by admitting to the
harassment/assault claim, you are actually admitting that I have a
First Amendment right to be there. If I was on his front lawn or inside
his store and doing the same things, there would be no claim
whatsoever.
Why don't these people get this? This is basic civics...
>
> I invite you again to bring forward the case
> law that would show that you do.
>
One more time... I don't have to. It's not necessary. The fact that you
admit that he could be charged with harassment or assault means you
know the answer..
milt....@gmail.com
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140631698.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1140625205.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >> Now, what you need to do is come up with a cite
> >> >> from case law that is on point showing how
> >> >> one private citizen has a First Amendement
> >> >> cause of action against another private
> >> >> citizen.
> >> >
> >> > I did that a long time ago, but you know what? I don't
> >> > have to do that.
> >> > It's common sense.
> >>
> >> It's not "common sense," Milt.
> >
> > Yeah it is.
>
> No it is not, Milt.
>
> But that's beside the point.
>
> Where are your cites of on point case law?
Okay, why would something so cut and dried even be covered by case law.
Do we really need case law for something like this?
Here's one for you; why don't you cite siome case law that indicates
the jduge would "laugh me out of court" for asking the court for an
order to keep this guy from running me off a public sidewalk?
>
> You're a high-powered paralegal, aren't you?
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Any 12 year old fresh
from a civics class knows I'm correct.
>
> >>
> >> If you cited to on point cases "a long time ago"
> >> you need to bring the cites and quote the cases
> >> in pertinent part.
> >
> > No, I don't. You can go look them up yourself.
>
> That's not my job, Milt.
I'm afraid it is. If you need a nanny to hold your hand through this,
you picked the wrong guy.
>
> Obviously, Milt, you don't have anything
> to back you up, except your "common sense" that
> a restriction on the law-making power of
> government can become a cause of action
> against a private citizen.
You're just as dumb as Canyon and Jeffrey. You don't know what legal
terms mean, yet you use them. This has nothing to do with a "cause of
action." The guy ran me off the sidewalk, and I want to make sure he
can't do it again. The basis for that request will hinge on my right to
be there in the fiirst place -- which can be found by any literate
American in the First Amendment.
>
> Your refusal to support your claim demonstrates
> that you're just wasting everyone's time.
No, you're expecting to waste my time. No one asked you to read any of
this, or even comment.
>
> But then there's nothing new there, either.
Nope. For those of you with iron-poor tired blood, forget Geritol...
right wingers offer iron-y in every post.
milt....@gmail.com
milt....@gmail.com
milt....@gmail.com
a few noses every once in a while...
milt....@gmail.com
steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Jeffrey, you're confused because you're a moron, and you don't know
> > what a lawsuit is. You seem to think that it's some sort of punitive
> > actuion against someone. It's not. It's an attempt to resolve a
> > dispute. Obviously, I think I have the right to pass out flyers, and
> > it's clear the store owner thinks he can simply run me off the
> > sidewalk. I will go to court and ask for an order to get this guy to
> > cease trying to drive me off the sidewalk. According to Canyon, the
> > judge will "laugh me out of court."
> >
> > Of course, the act of a judge "laugh(ing) me out of court would in
> > itself be a violation of my First Amendment rights, because it would
> > effectively acknowldge the store owner's "right" to run me off the
> > PUBLIC sidewalk. He has yet to explain that one...
>
> <LOL> easily explained.... once again...where exactly in the First
> Amendment does it say that the store owner *doesn't* have the right to
> run you off the sidewalk, Milt?
This thread is truly bringing out the "stupid" in the wingnuts, better
than most....
Canyon, the above abssolutely certifies your "loon" status. Every
liberal on Usenet should use this one as a sig. Although most of the
others are pretty good, too.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Well, here's one that got tossed out when someone tried to sue because
they thought their first amendment rights were being violated. So I
guess the government DOES'T have to support your First amendment claim
when you ask them to.
http://www.cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/degrassi.html
2. The claim for exclusion from the October 1996 Council meetings.
DeGrassi asserts that her exclusion from Council meetings in October
1996 violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment.
According to DeGrassi, these were "closed meetings" in which the
claims and defenses in the Andrews action were discussed. She claims
she was excluded on advice of the City' s counsel.
In Madison Sch. Dist. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm' n, 429
U.S. 167 (1976), the Court stated: "Plainly, public bodies may confine
their meetings to specified subject matter and may hold nonpublic
sessions to transact business." Id. at 175 n.8. In Perry Educ. Ass' n
v. Perry Local Educators' Ass' n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983), the Court
observed that "the State may reserve [a nonpublic] forum for its
intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the
regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress
expression merely because public officials oppose the speakers' s
view." Id. at 46. In Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 67 F.3d
266 (9th Cir. 1995), we applied the forum analysis to city council and
board meetings. We said that "[c]itizens are not entitled to exercise
their First Amendment rights whenever and wherever they wish," id. at
269, and concluded that such meetings "fit more neatly into the
nonpublic forum niche," id. at 270. We acknowledged, however, that
"limitations on speech at those meetings must be reasonable and
viewpoint neutral, but that is all they need to be." Id. at 271.
DeGrassi was excluded from the October meetings because of her
status as a party, not because of her viewpoint. See Perry, 460 U.S.
at 49 (denial of access to nonpublic forum based on status is not
viewpoint discrimination). Because of the potential conflict between
DeGrassi' s role as a Council member and her personal interest, it was
reasonable for the Council to exclude her from its discussions
concerning her request for a defense. See Pickering v. Board of Educ.,
391 U.S. 563, 570 (1968) (finding a sufficiently great interest in
confidentiality may override a public employee' s First Amendment
rights). Moreover, her exclusion caused only a minor intrusion on her
right to speak; she was not precluded from speaking out in public or
directly with other Council members. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S.
817, 824 (1974) (alternative means of communication are a relevant
factor in First Amendment analysis). Because exclusion of DeGrassi was
both viewpoint neutral and reasonable, defendants did not violate her
First Amendment rights as a private citizen.
DeGrassi also asserts that as a member of the Council she has First
Amendment rights independent of those of a citizen. Restrictions on a
council member' s ability to attend council meetings and address
matters of public concern may infringe the member' s First Amendment
rights. See Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 137 (1966) (Georgia
legislature' s disqualification of elected representative on account
of statements about the Vietnam war violated representative' s right
of free expression under First Amendment). As the Court stated in
Bond, "[t]he manifest function of the First Amendment in a
representative government requires that legislators be given the
widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy." Id. at
135-36. But "[t]he central commitment of the First Amendment . . . is
that ' debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and
wide-open' . . . . [S]tatements criticizing public policy and the
implementation of it must be . . . protected." Id. at 136 (emphasis
added) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270
(1964)). With respect to public employees generally, while their
"speech on matters of public concern merits the highest degree of
First Amendment protection . . . if the communication is essentially
self-interested, with no public import, then it is not of public
concern." Roe v. City and County of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578,
584-85 (9th Cir. 1997). As the Supreme Court stated in Connick v.
Meyers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983):
When employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to
any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,
government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their
offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of
the First Amendment.
id. at 146; see also McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1114
(9th Cir. 1983) ("Speech by public employees may be characterized as
not of ' public concern' when it is clear that such speech deals with
individual personnel disputes and grievances and that the information
would be of no relevance to the public' s evaluation of the
performance of governmental agencies." ).
While the free speech rights of elected officials may well be
entitled to broader protection than those of public employees
generally, the underlying rationale remains the same. Legislators are
given "the widest latitude to express their views on issues of
policy." Bond, 385 U.S. at 136. DeGrassi' s allegations do not relate
to issues of policy or to any matter of political, social or other
concern to the community. They concern her grievance with the Council
over the terms on which the City would provide her a defense in the
Andrews action. Because her exclusion from the closed meetings did not
interfere with DeGrassi' s ability to speak out in public or to
represent her constituents, it did not offend the First Amendment.
>>
>> You're a high-powered paralegal, aren't you?
>
>What the hell does that have to do with anything? Any 12 year old fresh
>from a civics class knows I'm correct.
12 year olds....hmmm...meet Milt's peers.
>>
>> >>
>> >> If you cited to on point cases "a long time ago"
>> >> you need to bring the cites and quote the cases
>> >> in pertinent part.
>> >
>> > No, I don't. You can go look them up yourself.
>>
>> That's not my job, Milt.
>
>I'm afraid it is. If you need a nanny to hold your hand through this,
>you picked the wrong guy.
>>
>> Obviously, Milt, you don't have anything
>> to back you up, except your "common sense" that
>> a restriction on the law-making power of
>> government can become a cause of action
>> against a private citizen.
>
>You're just as dumb as Canyon and Jeffrey. You don't know what legal
>terms mean, yet you use them. This has nothing to do with a "cause of
>action." The guy ran me off the sidewalk, and I want to make sure he
>can't do it again. The basis for that request will hinge on my right to
>be there in the fiirst place -- which can be found by any literate
>American in the First Amendment.
But you wanted to sue him for violating your first amendment
rights...something he can't do.
>>
>> Your refusal to support your claim demonstrates
>> that you're just wasting everyone's time.
>
>No, you're expecting to waste my time. No one asked you to read any of
>this, or even comment.
You did by posting in in a public forum Milt.
>>
>> But then there's nothing new there, either.
>
>Nope. For those of you with iron-poor tired blood, forget Geritol...
>right wingers offer iron-y in every post.
JSL