OT. There are no protests on federal property.
theget
Subject line quotes LEOs in the video at the link at around 1:24.
At 2:45 they suggest that there aren't 1st Amendment protections on
federal property.
At around 2:55 a LEO says you have a right to protest on public
property but not federal property.
Here's a link to the video at you tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnwQ2RPMxg&feature=player_embedded
Nothing to see here citizen, move along.
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>Libertarians and FIJA.
>
>Subject line quotes LEOs in the video at the link at around 1:24.
>At 2:45 they suggest that there aren't 1st Amendment protections on
>federal property.
Just as you can be evicted from private property, you can be evicted
from a federal facility and arrested for refusing to leave. If you
couldn't then Langly and Area 51 would have a bit of trouble.
theget
How is being asked to leave a question of 1st Amendment rights?
There are legal limits on being asked to leave private property too.
I can't recall the case, but I'm pretty sure there's a SCOTUS decision
saying that you can pass out literature in a mall, even if it's
contrary to the wishes of the mall owners.
I don't know the whole story. Perhaps he needed a permit and failed
to obtain one, in which case, his bad. And it's true that the
government may have some interest in preventing protest on certain
federal properties, like military bases. But I don't see how protest
can be forbidden in front of a federal court house. I don't see how
it can be impermissible to pass out literature in front of a court
house. Particularly political literature. Even FIJA literature. But
who knows. If SCOTUS is willing to do the evil that was Frederick v.
Morse (I don't like all the 'conservative' decisions either.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick then who knows what
other tragedies they have in store to limit our free of expression.
However, this may be good news for Eric Holder. He won't have to deal
with any protests if KSM goes on trial. After all, no protests
allowed on federal property. That LEO said so.
Theget
D.F. Manno
<4c96d5b9-d596-4fdd...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> Subject line quotes LEOs in the video at the link at around 1:24.
> At 2:45 they suggest that there aren't 1st Amendment protections on
> federal property.
Look up "time, place and manner" restrictions on freedom of expression.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
Religion ... the only winning move is not to play!
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 12:13�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:12:27 -0800 (PST), theget
>>
>> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> >Libertarians and FIJA.
>>
>> >Subject line quotes LEOs in the video at the link at around 1:24.
>> >At 2:45 they suggest that there aren't 1st Amendment protections on
>> >federal property.
>>
>> Just as you can be evicted from private property, you can be evicted
>> from a federal facility and arrested for refusing to leave. �If you
>> couldn't then Langly and Area 51 would have a bit of trouble.
>
>How is being asked to leave a question of 1st Amendment rights?
It isn't particularly.
>
>There are legal limits on being asked to leave private property too.
>I can't recall the case, but I'm pretty sure there's a SCOTUS decision
>saying that you can pass out literature in a mall, even if it's
>contrary to the wishes of the mall owners.
There are a lot of decisions. For example SCOTUS recently ruled that
you can NOT collect petition signatures in Oregon malls over the
objections of the management.
>
>I don't know the whole story. Perhaps he needed a permit and failed
>to obtain one, in which case, his bad.
Hard to get a permit to try to influence jury decisions.
And it's true that the
>government may have some interest in preventing protest on certain
>federal properties, like military bases. But I don't see how protest
>can be forbidden in front of a federal court house. I don't see how
>it can be impermissible to pass out literature in front of a court
>house. Particularly political literature. Even FIJA literature. But
>who knows. If SCOTUS is willing to do the evil that was Frederick v.
>Morse (I don't like all the 'conservative' decisions either.)
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick then who knows what
>other tragedies they have in store to limit our free of expression.
>
>However, this may be good news for Eric Holder. He won't have to deal
>with any protests if KSM goes on trial. After all, no protests
>allowed on federal property. That LEO said so.
The answer of course is to protest just outside federal property.
theget
> In article
> <4c96d5b9-d596-4fdd-b031-9487a62af...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > Subject line quotes LEOs in the video at the link at around 1:24.
> > At 2:45 they suggest that there aren't 1st Amendment protections on
> > federal property.
>
> Look up "time, place and manner" restrictions on freedom of expression.
If the LEO had said something related to that, then I wouldn't have
posted the link. But he suggested that there aren't 1st Amendment
protection on federal property.
Theget
D.F. Manno
<f4fe4295-01b1-4afe...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> >�theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Subject line quotes LEOs in the video at the link at around 1:24.
> > > At 2:45 they suggest that there aren't 1st Amendment protections on
> > > federal property.
> >
> > Look up "time, place and manner" restrictions on freedom of expression.
>
> If the LEO had said something related to that, then I wouldn't have
> posted the link. But he suggested that there aren't 1st Amendment
> protection on federal property.
Do you seriously expect some rent-a-cop to be an expert on the fine
points of First Amendment jurisprudence?
David Johnston
If he had gone to law school then after six years or so he would
probably have said "First Amendment protection does not extend to
allowing protesters onto to Federal property" and maybe cited some
case law. But since he didn't, he didn't.
theget
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Subject line quotes LEOs in the video at the link at around 1:24.
> > > > At 2:45 they suggest that there aren't 1st Amendment protections on
> > > > federal property.
>
> > > Look up "time, place and manner" restrictions on freedom of expression.
>
> > If the LEO had said something related to that, then I wouldn't have
> > posted the link. But he suggested that there aren't 1st Amendment
> > protection on federal property.
>
> Do you seriously expect some rent-a-cop to be an expert on the fine
> points of First Amendment jurisprudence?
1) He didn't look like a rent-a-cop to me.
2) Given the state of the courts, it might be too much to expect an
attorney to be an expert on what is protected expression and what
isn't never mind a LEO.
3) He's an employee of the federal government. If the federal
government sends out a rent-a-cop, or any kind of cop for that matter,
to enforce the law, then my view is that they ought to train them to
do the job right. Someone ought to take responsibility... ah yes,
we've given up on that idea haven't we.
Theget
theget
I don't think that would be good enough. He's not guarding a military
base. He's guarding the offices of one of the three branches of
government. Outside a federal court building, federal property or no,
I believe that there is a 1st Amendment right. It may be limited in
someway, perhaps as DF Manno suggested, by time, place and manner, but
it doesn't go away because it's federal property.
> But since he didn't, he didn't.
This is an amazing theory of how a government employee, particularly
someone charged with law enforcement, should behave.
Either he is a law-enforcement-officer, or a we-don't-have-rule-of-law-
enforcement-officer.
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
It didn't go away. He wasn't jailed for what he said.
>
>> But since he didn't, he didn't.
>
>This is an amazing theory of how a government employee, particularly
>someone charged with law enforcement, should behave.
What's so amazing about suggesting that government employees sometimes
speak sloppily?
theget
He has been arrested in the past. Follow the link in the original
article.
> >> But since he didn't, he didn't.
>
> >This is an amazing theory of how a government employee, particularly
> >someone charged with law enforcement, should behave.
>
> What's so amazing about suggesting that government employees sometimes
> speak sloppily?
Of course they do all the time, but if he's going to arrest people
under color of law, or even tell them what to do when they're trying
to exercise their 1st Amendment rights then I don't think that he has
the privilege of speaking quite so sloppily. But that's probably just
me.
Here's another interesting situation.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/
Theget