Watch Canyon Go Off the Deep End
Milt
I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
rights whenever possible. Canyon went ballistic and has been trying to
prove this wrong for almost a week. This has to be the post to end all
posts. Rarely have I read anything so clueless in all of my years on
Usenet.
Steve Canyon wrote:
> On 17 May 2004 11:17:01 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:<gg8ha0ph6ebj04m7e...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:14:37 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Milt claims to know about the law yet he continually makes stupid,
>>>>>moronic claims that can easily be disproved. Here, I document where
>>>>>Milt has claimed that the First Amendment can be the basis for a suit
>>>>>against a private citizen.
>>>>>
>>>>>Milt says, "if you're standing on the corner,
>>>>>legally handing out flyers, speaking out against the store in front of
>>>>>which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes your fliers
>>>>>and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
>>>>>the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact
>>>>>that no government was involved."
>>>>>
>>>>>And here is a quote from a very creditable website that shows that
>>>>>once again, Milt is very, very wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"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. The State could be
>>>>>either the Federal government or (now) a State government. Many
>>>>>mistakenly thank that any suppression of speech, including suppression
>>>>>by private citizens, violates the First Amendment. Such a private
>>>>>action might be objectionable for ethical or social reasons, but it
>>>>>does not present a constitutional issue."
>>>>>http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's see Milt argue with:
>>>>>
>>>>>An interdisciplinary education project partially funded by the
>>>>>American Bar Association, Commission on College and University Legal
>>>>>Studies through the ABA Fund for Justice and Education
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> She is talking about something different, asswipe.
>>>
>>>She's asserting that there is no First amendment protection against a
>>>private party, you moron, you're trying to claim that there is.
>>
>>What I said was, you illiterate fool, is that the First Amendment
>>creates an obligation on the part of the givernment to protect your
>>free speech rights.
>
>
> ...and I say that you're wrong and I challenged you to prove that
> you're right and you can't and then I quoted the U.S Supreme Court
> ruling that said that...
>
> "while statutory or common law may in some situations extend
> protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person
> who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection
> or redress is provided by the Constitution itself,"
>
> ...which totally disproves your claim that First Amendment creates no
> obligation whatsoever on the part of the government to protect you
> free speech rights against private parties....
>
> There. did I sum it all up OK?
Sure.
Okay, for those of you just catching up, here's the scenario I gave Canyon;
I'm standing on a public sidewalk in front of a store handing out
fliers, when the owner of the store grabs my fliers and has several
large, burly men escort me away from the area in front of the store. I
sue the store owner in court.
Canyon actually thinks that, because the First Amendment only applies to
abridgement of my right to free speech on the part of the government,
the judge (who obviously represents the government) has no obligation to
protect my right to free speech.
Now on with the show.
>>She doesn't say there isn't one. You simply can't
>>read. She simply says you can't invoke the First Amendment against a
>>private party.
>
>
> <LOL> ...and you said, "you have
> the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact
> that no government was involved."
>
> And you are obviously wrong.
How am I wrong?
Don't I have the right to free speech? (You have to keep reading for
Stevie's surprising answer to that one.)
I'm bringing a complaint against the store owner in a government-run
court, am I not?
Well, let's keep going, because this gets even funnier.
>
> <LOL> what else is new.....
Exactly...
>
>
>>What she is saying and what I am saying are two different things...
>>
>>>>>Milt *is* a moron.. <LOL>
>>>>>
>>>>>Will Milt ever learn?
>>>>
>>>>Learn that you don't know what you're talking about? Already have.
>>>
>>>So tell us, Milt, do you think that there is first amendment
>>>protection against a private party, or not?
>>
>>I think the government has a responsibility to protect your First
>>Amendment rights when a private party tries to prevent you from
>>exercising them, yes.
>
> <LOL> and yet the Supreme Court said "the constitutional guarantee
> of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> federal or state."
>
Okay, so I'm in court, standing before the government-appointed or
-elected judge, and I am claiming that I have the right to be on the
public sidewalk. According to you, Canyon, (no wonder you're named after
a cartoon), the judge will have to side with the store owner, because I
have no right to free speech, based on the above.
There is nothing in the above that says that, Stevie. In fact, it says
just the opposite. It says that the judge in that case is OBLIGATED by
the Constitution to GUARANTEE my free speech rights. It's right there,
in the very quote you keep repeating, as if it doesn't undermine your case.
IOW, you're actually stupid enough to think the judge would have to side
AGAINST me because the store owner is a private citizen. The problem
with that is, the judge would then be abridging my free speech rights,
wouldn't he?
Wait to answer, because this post just gets better the more Canyon dances.
>
>>Look at the scenario I gave you again, and tell
>>me why they don't.
>
>
> Because "the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee
> only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
Right. So explain again how the judge (the government) could rule
against me and NOT abridge my right to free speech...
>
> <LOL> ...and no amount of whining is going to reverse their decision,
> Milt..
>
Don't expect them to.
(Gotta love the way he throws in a <LOL> every time he says something
profoundly stupid, dontcha?)
>>If I have the right to free speech, and someone
>>stops me from exercising that, I take them to court.
>
>
> Not under the First Amendment.. <LOL>
So, you're saying I don't actually have any free speech rights. What
you're actually saying (and this isn't even the dumbest thing you say in
this post!) is that we don't have any free speech rights; we just can't
be stopped by the GOVERNMENT. ANYONE ELSE can prevent us from exercising
our rights and we have no recourse.
Jesus. I'm sure glad I don't live in your America.
>
>
>>The court is the
>>government. Now, are you seriously going to tell me the judge has no
>>obligation to side with me and help protect my First Amendment rights?
>
>
> <ROTFLMAO> Errrrr, I've been telling you that and I've been backing
> it up with the words from a SCOTUS ruling, you moron...
I know, and it sounds dumber every time you say it.
>
> and all you're doing is repeating your stupid claim over and over.....
You're claim is that we have no free speech rights, and the judge can
abridge my free speech rights at will, even though he's "the government"
and, according to your oft-repeated quote, ONLY the government
guarantees my free speech rights.
So let's recap. The government guarantees my free speech rights, unless
a judge decides not to, because he's reading Canyon's posts on Usenet.
>
>
>>>>Why do these fuckwits think that, because they find one web site in
>>>>which the webmaster claims certain knowledge, they've hit the mother
>>>>lode of knowledge on an issue. Is the law really that far beyond the
>>>>comprehension of the average person?
>>>>
>>>>>I'm betting that he won't
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Okay, lessee...
>>>>
>>>>My basic premise is that the First Amendment puts an obligation on the
>>>>government to protect your right to free speech where at all
possible. I
>>>>then posited a situation in which a person is legally handing out
fliers
>>>>in front of a store. The owner of the store confiscates the fliers and
>>>>has big burly men move the flier distributor from the sidewalk in
front
>>>>of his store.
>>>
>>>You mean that the big burly men assault the guy, and/or confiscate his
>>>property? That's against the law, but not the First Amendment.
>>
>>In a civil case in a District Court? Wanna bet? I'm going to go before
>>a judge, and I'm going to assert my right to stand on the corner. That
>>judge has an obligation to protect my rights.
>
>
> With regards to the First Amendment, his only obligation involves
> protecting you against actions by a government or government agent.
So, what -- I have to wait for the APPEAL before someone protects me
against HIS actions? Do you even have a CLUE how stupid you sound?
>>Jesus, you have a hard head. Unfortunately, it seems to be filled with
>>oatmeal...
>
>
> <LOL> Try as hard as he can, Milt just can't make a falsehood become
> true....
>
Oh, yeah. I'm the one perpetrating a falsehood. YOU are the one trying
to convince us that a judge can abridge free speech rights at will,
despite the fact that your own quote says otherwise.
>
>>>>Got it so far?
>>>
>>>Yeah, you've presented an example of persons probably violating a
>>>state or local law...
>>
>>I haven't even mentioned any criminal statutes. If I take him to
>>court, the matter is civil, not criminal.
>
>
> If you take a private party to court on the basis of the First
> Amendment you'll lose because "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)
First problem; the plaintiff was on private property, not public.
Second problem: Stevie conveniently picks and chooses his "arguments."
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
federal or state. See Columbia [***203] Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
Democratic National Comm., 412 U.S. 94. Thus, while statutory or common
law may in some situations extend protection or provide redress against
a private corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression
of others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution
itself.
"This elementary proposition is little more than a truism. But even
truisms are not always unexceptionably true, and an exception to this
one was recognized almost 30 years ago in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S.
501. In Marsh, a Jehovah's Witness who had distributed literature
without a license on a sidewalk in Chickasaw, Ala., was convicted of
criminal trespass. Chickasaw was a so-called company town, wholly owned
by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corp. It was described in the Court's opinion
as follows...
(Description of typical company town snipped.)
"The Court's opinion pointed out that the First and Fourteenth
Amendments would clearly have protected the picketing if it had taken
place on a public sidewalk: S
"It is clear that if the shopping center premises were not privately
owned but instead constituted the business area of a municipality, which
they to a large extent resemble, petitioners could not be barred from
exercising their First Amendment rights there on the sole ground that
title to the property was in the municipality. Lovell v. Griffin, 303
U.S. 444 (1938); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Schneider v. State,
308 U.S. 147 (1939); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943). The essence
of those opinions is that streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar
public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First
Amendment rights that access to them for the purpose of exercising such
rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely." 391
U.S., at 315.I"
Hmmm... so what does that mean?
That means, if the store owner stopped me from exercising my First
Amendment rights, and I petition the government for redress, and the
judge DOES NOT issue any sort of order stopping the store owner from
repeating his actions, he would be effectively abridging my right to
free speech.
>>>>Now, the protester sues in court, and asserts that he has a First
>>>>Amendment right to be on the public sidewalk handing out fliers and
that
>>>>the store owner's action prevented him from exercising his rights.
>>>
>>><LOL> There is no First Amendment protection "right" against a
>>>private party....
>>>
>>
>>So, the judge has no obligation to enforce my right to free speech,
>>and issue an order to prevent the store owner from doing the same
>>things again?
>
>
> Yeah... <shaking my head and smiling>
>
>>Wanna bet?
>
>
> <LOL> Is "wanna bet" your new argument?
>
> You sound like a child, Milt....
I'm not the one claiming that a judge doesn't have an obligation to
protect your Constitutional rights.
>
>>>>Now,
>>>>think a little; isn't a judge hearing this case going to use that as a
>>>>basis for his ruling?
>>>
>>>Nope, The Supreme Court says there is no basis for First Amendment
>>>protection against a private party, so a judge cannot rule otherwise.
>>
>>So, in Stevie World, I could march outside the White House holding a
>>sign saying "Dubya is a bad president" and if a line of large burly
>>KBR employees intimidates me, without hitting me or physically
>>assaulting me, I have NO RECOURSE in the courts.
>
>
> <LOL> Intimidates you? <ROTFLMAO>
Note that he doesn't answer the question.
>
>>Basically, what
>>you're saying is, I have NO freedom of speech, because any moron who
>>doesn't happen to work for the government can stifle my free speech,
>>and NO JUDGE (who work for the government, btw -- I don't know how
>>many times I have to give Canyon that hint before he gets it) has ANY
>>obligation to protect my free speech rights.
>
>
> <LOL> All you need to do is show a case where that happened, Milt...
The Honolulu Advertiser (Honolulu, HI) December 6, 2002 Friday
Copyright 2002 The Honolulu Advertiser (Honolulu, HI)
All Rights Reserved
The Honolulu Advertiser (Honolulu, HI)
December 6, 2002 Friday
SECTION: HAWAII; Pg. 2B
LENGTH: 594 words
HEADLINE: Judge upholds Waikiki picketer's right to display 'crime area'
sign
BYLINE: Waite David, Staff
BODY:
By David Waite, ADVERTISER COURTS WRITER
A Manoa man can continue to hold up signs proclaiming Waikiki a "violent
crime area" despite attempts by a newly opened, upscale shopping mall to
force him to go elsewhere, Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna ruled yesterday.
John Cook, 45, has been holding his sign in front of the Kalakaua
Southseas mall, whose tenants include Gucci and Tiffany and other
high-end retailers, warning pedestrians and motorists alike that Waikiki
is far from the tropical paradise it is made out to be.
Earlier in the week, McKenna refused to grant the mall's owner a
temporary restraining order that would have prevented Cook from
displaying his sign on the public sidewalk in front of the mall.
And yesterday, McKenna denied a request for a preliminary injunction
that sought to keep Cook from displaying his message within 150 feet of
the building.
Mall attorney Leroy Colombe told McKenna at the hearing yesterday that
Cook was engaging in "scapegoat picketing," implying that the mall was
somehow responsible for a series of Waikiki murders and a severe beating
that Cook suffered seven years ago on a different piece of property in
the district.
Colombe said Cook's sign, with "violent crime area" written in large red
letters, must surely have a negative impact on customer traffic at the
new mall.
"I don't think anyone likes to have someone marching up and down in
front of their home, their business, their store or whatever carrying a
sign saying it's a high-crime area," Colombe said.
McKenna, who announced at the start of the hearing that she was not
inclined to grant the mall's request, asked Colombe, "What law has he
violated?"
In response, Colombe said, "We don't believe his First Amendment (free
speech) rights extend to that extent.
"Mr. Cook would still be allowed to exercise his first amendment rights,
but not in front of our store," Colombe said.
What hardship on the mall has Cook caused, McKenna asked.
It's bad for business, Colombe answered.
"How many people has it kept from going in, we don't know," Colombe said.
"Is he bad-mouthing your store," McKenna asked.
"Not directly," Colombe answered.
Ted Baker, acting on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union and
representing Cook at yesterday's hearing, called Cook's sign-holding "a
clear case of public expression in a public forum."
Baker said Cook routinely stands at the corner of Kalakaua Avenue and
Kalaimoku Street twice a week from 7 to 10 a.m., has never tried to
impede pedestrian traffic and has never been asked to leave by police.
"The plaintiff seems to be saying, 'Mr. Cook should express himself in
someone else's backyard, not mine,' " Baker said.
McKenna said the mall failed to meet the criteria necessary for her to
issue a preliminary injunction against Cook.
After the hearing, Cook said he was nearly beaten to death at the Kuhio
Surf Club on Kuhio Avenue seven years ago, that it took him three years
to recover and that he has carried various signs warning the public
about violence in Waikiki for the past four years.
"What I'm saying has nothing to do with (Kalakaua Southseas)," Cook
said. "For six weeks, they have been coming up to me and saying they own
the city sidewalk and I've always told them, 'Just show me something and
I will leave.'
Cook said he had no intention of holding his sign this evening, when a
grand opening is planned for the mall. But he said he is unhappy about
being taken to court and having to defend his constitutional rights.
"I might just change my mind," he said.
(Hmmm... private picketer, private property owner...)
----------------
The following one is a little different. Let's see if he picks up on the
meaning...
The Salt Lake Tribune, February 4, 2004
Copyright 2004 The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune (Utah)
February 4, 2004, Wednesday
SECTION: Final; Pg. B3
LENGTH: 229 words
HEADLINE: Granite loses PETA lawsuit
BODY:
A lawsuit by members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA) against Granite School District officials over their treatment
during an anti-McDonald's protest has ended with a ruling that the
activists' First Amendment rights were violated.
Attorneys on both sides reached an agreement Tuesday that calls for
payment of $ 82,000 to Brian Barnard and James Harris Jr., lawyers with
Utah Legal Clinic who were representing members of the animal-rights
group. The members sued after district police threatened to arrest them
when they protested in front of Eisenhower Junior High School in
Taylorsville over the flying of a banner from the fast food chain on the
school flagpole.
Judge Dee Benson of U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City ruled two
weeks ago that the protesters' rights were violated when school
officials dispersed them. The judge said that no state law authorizes
the officials to control activities on a public sidewalk.
The judge set a trial for June to decide damages for the protesters, but
Barnard said settlement negotiations were held because PETA activists
conceded that they probably were entitled only to nominal damages.
PETA's legal expenses, which included an appeal to the 10 U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, added up to $ 114,000, but the group agreed to accept
a smaller amount, Barnard said.
(Yes, I know, the school officials are the government. But read what it
says about the public sidewalks. Wow.)
>>Amazing.
>>
>>So tell us, Moron --
>>
>>If the government is not allowed to make law abridging my freedom of
>>speech, and a judge makes a decision which either doesn't acknowledge
>>or denies my freedom of speech, how is that judge NOT making a law
>>"abridging the freedom of speech"? You do know that a judge's decision
>>has the force of law, until such time as it's overturned by another
>>court, right?
>
>
> He can't be infringing on your rights for refusing to enforce a right
> that doesn't exist in the first place... And you do NOT have a right
> to free speech infringement by a private party under the First
> Amendment....
You're right. I don't. Jesus. Do you even read what you write? I mean, I
misspell words, but really...
So your argument is that you do NOT have a right to free speech on a
public sidewalk, period, unless it's the government stopping you. And
it's because the judge (a government employee) gets to abridge your
right to free speech because the guy who took your fliers was not a
government official. Damn, that could make for a hell of a tyranny. All
the Bushies have to do now is hire Halliburton to roust folks from the
National Mall, and no one would ever have a case to bring before a court...
Jesus...
>
>
>>(And don't give me the whole "it just says Congress" routine."
>>Everyone who knows anything about this shit knows that the 14th
>>Amendment, among other things, extended BOR protections to all
>>government...)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course he is.
>>>
>>>Milt believes that saying it again and again will make it true even
>>>though the Supreme Court says otherwise..
>>
>>This coming from someone who is engaging in a logical fallacy and
>>repeating it over and over. How precious...
>>
>>>>Why? Because to do otherwise
>>>>would mean the judge (the government!!!!) would then be making law
that
>>>>abridged the protester's right to free speech. IOW, moron, the
judge has
>>>>an obligation to protect his free speech rights to the extent possible.
>>>
>>>There is no Constitutional free speech protection against a private
>>>party.... none.... So says the Supreme Court... The judge cannot
>>>give what the Supreme Court has ruled against.
>>
>>Um, dumbass? The judge is the government, moron. If the JUDGE rules
>>against your right to hand out fliers on a public sidewalk, in what
>>way has he NOT "violated" the First Amendment?
>
>
> Don't keep asking me to disprove your dumb assertions, Milt. You
> should try to prove that they are true. All you need to do is show a
> case where what you say happened...
>
I don't have to prove them. YOU've proved my assertions for me.
The government guarantees my free speech.
The judge is the government.
Therefore, the judge guarantees my free speech.
Case closed.
David Moffitt
"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:Ap-dnSneNsm...@comcast.com...
> For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
>
> I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> rights whenever possible. Canyon went ballistic and has been trying to
> prove this wrong for almost a week. This has to be the post to end all
> posts. Rarely have I read anything so clueless in all of my years on
> Usenet.
%%%% The whole question revolves around whether you were on his property or
on public property. Is the sidewalk in front of his establishment his
property or public property? In my state/ municipality you are not on public
property unless you are standing in public right of way. The side walks are
not public property but easements on private property and the owner has the
right to have you removed as a disturbance just like WalMart can have you
removed from their parking lot which is used by the public
The above opinions are those of a high strung, heavily armed, caffiene
dependent semi-psyco going through nicotine withdrawls. If you got a problem
with them, see me in person, leave my employer out of it.
.
Adam Albright
<MOFF...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
>"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>news:Ap-dnSneNsm...@comcast.com...
>> For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
>>
>> I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
>> obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
>> rights whenever possible. Canyon went ballistic and has been trying to
>> prove this wrong for almost a week. This has to be the post to end all
>> posts. Rarely have I read anything so clueless in all of my years on
>> Usenet.
>
>%%%% The whole question revolves around whether you were on his property or
>on public property. Is the sidewalk in front of his establishment his
>property or public property? In my state/ municipality you are not on public
>property unless you are standing in public right of way. The side walks are
>not public property but easements on private property and the owner has the
>right to have you removed as a disturbance just like WalMart can have you
>removed from their parking lot which is used by the public
What kind of a half-ass town you live in? RARELY if ever are the
sidewalks than run in front of private property "private". They are
public. Period. In fact I just got a notice from the city I live in
giving notice they will repair a small section of sidewalk that's in
front of my property. I have no say in the matter, the city contracts
the work out, it pays half, I get billed half if or not I want the
work done. In fact some towns have ordiances that say the propety
owner MUST clear his "public" sidewalks from snow and ice since they
are part of the PUBLIC way.
>
>The above opinions are those of a high strung, heavily armed, caffiene
>dependent semi-psyco going through nicotine withdrawls.
So you finally admit your on drugs. Your opinion is that of a fuckwit.
No value at all ever. You do make me laugh if that counts.
Dana
>
> I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> rights whenever possible.
It does no such thing.
The First Amendment like all Amendments prevents the government from
interfering with your basic freedoms. The Constitution does not apply
between conflicts between private citizens.
®
news:c69f4edb9779feb0...@news.meganetnews.com...
> "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:Ap-dnSneNsm...@comcast.com...
> > For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
> >
> > I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> > obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> > rights whenever possible.
>
> It does no such thing.
> The First Amendment like all Amendments prevents the government from
> interfering with your basic freedoms. The Constitution does not apply
> between conflicts between private citizens.
Oh jeezis! Please read the thread before replying.
R
Dana
news:E6hqc.18233$gr.1523657@attbi_s52...
> "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
> news:c69f4edb9779feb0...@news.meganetnews.com...
> > "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ap-dnSneNsm...@comcast.com...
> > > For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
> > >
> > > I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> > > obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> > > rights whenever possible.
> >
> > It does no such thing.
> > The First Amendment like all Amendments prevents the government from
> > interfering with your basic freedoms. The Constitution does not apply
> > between conflicts between private citizens.
>
> Oh jeezis! Please read the thread before replying.
And your issue is where?
The federal or state government is not obligated for ensuring your first
Amendment rights are not violated, but that the government is obligated to
not restrict your ability to express your rights.
Milt
> "Ž" <nos...@at.com> wrote in message
> news:E6hqc.18233$gr.1523657@attbi_s52...
>
>>"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
>>news:c69f4edb9779feb0...@news.meganetnews.com...
>>
>>>"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Ap-dnSneNsm...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
>>>>
>>>>I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
>>>>obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
>>>>rights whenever possible.
>>>
>>>It does no such thing.
>>>The First Amendment like all Amendments prevents the government from
>>>interfering with your basic freedoms. The Constitution does not apply
>>>between conflicts between private citizens.
>>
>>Oh jeezis! Please read the thread before replying.
>
>
> And your issue is where?
> The federal or state government is not obligated for ensuring your first
> Amendment rights are not violated, but that the government is obligated to
> not restrict your ability to express your rights.
>
sounding like a reactionary idiot.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
>
>I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
>obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
>rights whenever possible. Canyon went ballistic and has been trying to
>prove this wrong for almost a week. This has to be the post to end all
>posts. Rarely have I read anything so clueless in all of my years on
>Usenet.
Actually, Milt made the claim that "you have the basis for a Forst
(sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no government was
involved" and he'[s been running away fromk that claim ever since I
showed him a cite from the Supreme Court that says:
"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)
>Steve Canyon wrote:
<LOL> Milt thinks the judge has an obligation to protect rights that
don't exist....
>Now on with the show.
>
> >>She doesn't say there isn't one. You simply can't
> >>read. She simply says you can't invoke the First Amendment against a
> >>private party.
> >
> >
> > <LOL> ...and you said, "you have
> > the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact
> > that no government was involved."
> >
> > And you are obviously wrong.
>
>How am I wrong?
>
>Don't I have the right to free speech? (You have to keep reading for
>Stevie's surprising answer to that one.)
You keep leaving out the part where you say you have a right to First
Amendment protection *AGAINST* a private citizen.
>I'm bringing a complaint against the store owner in a government-run
>court, am I not?
Errrrr, you have no right to First Amendment protection *AGAINST* the
store owner, you moron.
>Well, let's keep going, because this gets even funnier.
Indeed...
> >
> > <LOL> what else is new.....
>
>Exactly...
> >
> >
> >>What she is saying and what I am saying are two different things...
> >>
> >>>>>Milt *is* a moron.. <LOL>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Will Milt ever learn?
> >>>>
> >>>>Learn that you don't know what you're talking about? Already have.
> >>>
> >>>So tell us, Milt, do you think that there is first amendment
> >>>protection against a private party, or not?
> >>
> >>I think the government has a responsibility to protect your First
> >>Amendment rights when a private party tries to prevent you from
> >>exercising them, yes.
> >
> > <LOL> and yet the Supreme Court said "the constitutional guarantee
> > of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> > federal or state."
> >
>
>Okay, so I'm in court, standing before the government-appointed or
>-elected judge, and I am claiming that I have the right to be on the
>public sidewalk. According to you, Canyon, (no wonder you're named after
>a cartoon), the judge will have to side with the store owner, because I
>have no right to free speech, based on the above.
you have no right to First Amendment protection *AGAINST* a private
citizen.
>There is nothing in the above that says that, Stevie. In fact, it says
>just the opposite. It says that the judge in that case is OBLIGATED by
>the Constitution to GUARANTEE my free speech rights. It's right there,
>in the very quote you keep repeating, as if it doesn't undermine your case.
It says, and I quote, " the constitutional guarantee of free speech is
a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
>IOW, you're actually stupid enough to think the judge would have to side
>AGAINST me because the store owner is a private citizen. The problem
>with that is, the judge would then be abridging my free speech rights,
>wouldn't he?
The judge cannot abridge a right that does not exist, you moron, and
you have no right to First Amendment free speech rights against a
private citizen.
>Wait to answer, because this post just gets better the more Canyon dances.
>
> >
> >>Look at the scenario I gave you again, and tell
> >>me why they don't.
> >
> >
> > Because "the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee
> > only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
>
>Right. So explain again how the judge (the government) could rule
>against me and NOT abridge my right to free speech...
he's not abridging your rights, you moron, because the right you claim
does not exist....
> > <LOL> ...and no amount of whining is going to reverse their decision,
> > Milt..
> >
>
>Don't expect them to.
>
>(Gotta love the way he throws in a <LOL> every time he says something
>profoundly stupid, dontcha?)
>
> >>If I have the right to free speech, and someone
> >>stops me from exercising that, I take them to court.
> >
> >
> > Not under the First Amendment.. <LOL>
>
>So, you're saying I don't actually have any free speech rights.
No, I'm saying that you have no right to First Amendment free speech
rights against a private citizen.
>What
>you're actually saying (and this isn't even the dumbest thing you say in
>this post!) is that we don't have any free speech rights;
No, I'm saying that you have no right to First Amendment free speech
rights against a private citizen.
>we just can't
>be stopped by the GOVERNMENT. ANYONE ELSE can prevent us from exercising
>our rights and we have no recourse.
Unless they break some law(s).... <shrug> people can do what they
want unless they break some law(s).
>Jesus. I'm sure glad I don't live in your America.
> >
> >
> >>The court is the
> >>government. Now, are you seriously going to tell me the judge has no
> >>obligation to side with me and help protect my First Amendment rights?
> >
> >
> > <ROTFLMAO> Errrrr, I've been telling you that and I've been backing
> > it up with the words from a SCOTUS ruling, you moron...
>
>I know, and it sounds dumber every time you say it.
>
> >
> > and all you're doing is repeating your stupid claim over and over.....
>
>You're claim is that we have no free speech rights, and the judge can
>abridge my free speech rights at will, even though he's "the government"
>and, according to your oft-repeated quote, ONLY the government
>guarantees my free speech rights.
No, my claim is that you have no right to First Amendment free speech
rights against a private citizen.
>So let's recap. The government guarantees my free speech rights, unless
>a judge decides not to, because he's reading Canyon's posts on Usenet.
No, the government guarantees your free speech rights only against
abridgment by government, federal or state.
U.S. Supreme Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
> >>>>Why do these fuckwits think that, because they find one web site in
> >>>>which the webmaster claims certain knowledge, they've hit the mother
> >>>>lode of knowledge on an issue. Is the law really that far beyond the
> >>>>comprehension of the average person?
> >>>>
> >>>>>I'm betting that he won't
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Okay, lessee...
> >>>>
> >>>>My basic premise is that the First Amendment puts an obligation on the
> >>>>government to protect your right to free speech where at all
>possible. I
> >>>>then posited a situation in which a person is legally handing out
>fliers
> >>>>in front of a store. The owner of the store confiscates the fliers and
> >>>>has big burly men move the flier distributor from the sidewalk in
>front
> >>>>of his store.
> >>>
> >>>You mean that the big burly men assault the guy, and/or confiscate his
> >>>property? That's against the law, but not the First Amendment.
> >>
> >>In a civil case in a District Court? Wanna bet? I'm going to go before
> >>a judge, and I'm going to assert my right to stand on the corner. That
> >>judge has an obligation to protect my rights.
> >
> >
> > With regards to the First Amendment, his only obligation involves
> > protecting you against actions by a government or government agent.
>
>So, what -- I have to wait for the APPEAL before someone protects me
>against HIS actions? Do you even have a CLUE how stupid you sound?
Irony anyone?
> >>Jesus, you have a hard head. Unfortunately, it seems to be filled with
> >>oatmeal...
> >
> >
> > <LOL> Try as hard as he can, Milt just can't make a falsehood become
> > true....
> >
>
>Oh, yeah. I'm the one perpetrating a falsehood. YOU are the one trying
>to convince us that a judge can abridge free speech rights at will,
>despite the fact that your own quote says otherwise.
No, I'm saying "Thus, while statutory or common law may in some
situations extend protection or provide redress against a private
corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression of
others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution
itself.
U.S. Supreme Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
> >>>>Got it so far?
> >>>
> >>>Yeah, you've presented an example of persons probably violating a
> >>>state or local law...
> >>
> >>I haven't even mentioned any criminal statutes. If I take him to
> >>court, the matter is civil, not criminal.
> >
> >
> > If you take a private party to court on the basis of the First
> > Amendment you'll lose because "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)
>
>First problem; the plaintiff was on private property, not public.
<shrug> So what?
>Second problem: Stevie conveniently picks and chooses his "arguments."
>
>"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
>free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
>federal or state. See Columbia [***203] Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
>Democratic National Comm., 412 U.S. 94. Thus, while statutory or common
>law may in some situations extend protection or provide redress against
>a private corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression
>of others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution
>itself.
See the part that says.. "no such protection or redress is provided by
the Constitution
>itself."
>"This elementary proposition is little more than a truism. But even
>truisms are not always unexceptionably true, and an exception to this
>one was recognized almost 30 years ago in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S.
>501. In Marsh, a Jehovah's Witness who had distributed literature
>without a license on a sidewalk in Chickasaw, Ala., was convicted of
>criminal trespass. Chickasaw was a so-called company town, wholly owned
>by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corp. It was described in the Court's opinion
>as follows...
>
>(Description of typical company town snipped.)
>
>"The Court's opinion pointed out that the First and Fourteenth
>Amendments would clearly have protected the picketing if it had taken
>place on a public sidewalk: S
errrrr, no the case revolved around the fact that the town was a
company town and the company, was a d facto government....
>"It is clear that if the shopping center premises were not privately
>owned but instead constituted the business area of a municipality, which
>they to a large extent resemble, petitioners could not be barred from
>exercising their First Amendment rights there on the sole ground that
>title to the property was in the municipality. Lovell v. Griffin, 303
>U.S. 444 (1938); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Schneider v. State,
>308 U.S. 147 (1939); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943). The essence
>of those opinions is that streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar
>public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First
>Amendment rights that access to them for the purpose of exercising such
>rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely." 391
>U.S., at 315.I"
>
>Hmmm... so what does that mean?
>
>That means, if the store owner stopped me from exercising my First
>Amendment rights, and I petition the government for redress, and the
>judge DOES NOT issue any sort of order stopping the store owner from
>repeating his actions, he would be effectively abridging my right to
>free speech.
Milt, Milt, Milt, the judge cannot abridge a right that does not exist
and you do *NOT* have a First Amendment right of protection against a
private citizen.
> >>>>Now, the protester sues in court, and asserts that he has a First
> >>>>Amendment right to be on the public sidewalk handing out fliers and
>that
> >>>>the store owner's action prevented him from exercising his rights.
> >>>
> >>><LOL> There is no First Amendment protection "right" against a
> >>>private party....
> >>>
> >>
> >>So, the judge has no obligation to enforce my right to free speech,
> >>and issue an order to prevent the store owner from doing the same
> >>things again?
> >
> >
> > Yeah... <shaking my head and smiling>
> >
> >>Wanna bet?
> >
> >
> > <LOL> Is "wanna bet" your new argument?
> >
> > You sound like a child, Milt....
>
>I'm not the one claiming that a judge doesn't have an obligation to
>protect your Constitutional rights.
I'm simply telling you that a judge has no obligation regarding
nonexistent rights...
> >>>>Now,
> >>>>think a little; isn't a judge hearing this case going to use that as a
> >>>>basis for his ruling?
> >>>
> >>>Nope, The Supreme Court says there is no basis for First Amendment
> >>>protection against a private party, so a judge cannot rule otherwise.
> >>
> >>So, in Stevie World, I could march outside the White House holding a
> >>sign saying "Dubya is a bad president" and if a line of large burly
> >>KBR employees intimidates me, without hitting me or physically
> >>assaulting me, I have NO RECOURSE in the courts.
> >
> >
> > <LOL> Intimidates you? <ROTFLMAO>
>
>Note that he doesn't answer the question.
You'd have to show some law prohibiting intimidation for that to be
valid, Milt.
<LOL> The problem with this example, Milt, is that it was the
private property owner that made the suit against the picketer, not
the other way around as in your claim.
You're still a moron Milt.
<LOL> Another Milt Shook diversion.. The case was decided because the
school officials were government agents, not private citizens..
> >>Amazing.
> >>
> >>So tell us, Moron --
> >>
> >>If the government is not allowed to make law abridging my freedom of
> >>speech, and a judge makes a decision which either doesn't acknowledge
> >>or denies my freedom of speech, how is that judge NOT making a law
> >>"abridging the freedom of speech"? You do know that a judge's decision
> >>has the force of law, until such time as it's overturned by another
> >>court, right?
> >
> >
> > He can't be infringing on your rights for refusing to enforce a right
> > that doesn't exist in the first place... And you do NOT have a right
> > to free speech infringement by a private party under the First
> > Amendment....
>
>You're right. I don't. Jesus. Do you even read what you write? I mean, I
>misspell words, but really...
>
>So your argument is that you do NOT have a right to free speech on a
>public sidewalk, period, unless it's the government stopping you.
No, Milt, my argument is you do *NOT* have a First Amendment right of
protection against a private citizen.
> And
>it's because the judge (a government employee) gets to abridge your
>right to free speech because the guy who took your fliers was not a
>government official. Damn, that could make for a hell of a tyranny. All
>the Bushies have to do now is hire Halliburton to roust folks from the
>National Mall, and no one would ever have a case to bring before a court...
blah, blah, blah...
Another Yeadon quality argument?
>YOU've proved my assertions for me.
And another Yeadon quality argument?
>The government guarantees my free speech.
"only against abridgment by government."
>The judge is the government.
>Therefore, the judge guarantees my free speech.
"only against abridgment by government."
"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)
<shaking my head and smiling> ...and Milt used to post from
"law.com."
You're a moron, Milt.
>Case closed.
OMG, Milt has said it lots of times, therefore it *must* be true....
***
"if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking out against
the store in front of which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes
your fliers and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
-- Milt Shook pretending to know about the law
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech
is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
424 U.S. 507
David Moffitt
"Adam Albright" <A...@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:m70ja05i8n68foi2o...@4ax.com...
%%%% Easement. If someone fell on the walk in front of your store who will
be sued?
> >
> >The above opinions are those of a high strung, heavily armed, caffiene
> >dependent semi-psyco going through nicotine withdrawls.
>
> So you finally admit your on drugs. Your opinion is that of a fuckwit.
> No value at all ever. You do make me laugh if that counts.
Any attempt to delete or censor this message before normal expiration shall
constitute a violation of my civil rights and is punishable by federal law.
>
>
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
>
>I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
>obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
>rights whenever possible.
Milt forgot to add....without any proof on his part in the form of a
ruling or legal opinion...Its just Milt opining the way Milt has a
tendency to do. You see, Milt is a progressive....If Milt believes
it, he sees it.
JSL
Milt
> "Ž" <nos...@at.com> wrote in message
> news:E6hqc.18233$gr.1523657@attbi_s52...
> > "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
> > news:c69f4edb9779feb0...@news.meganetnews.com...
> > > "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Ap-dnSneNsm...@comcast.com...
> > > > For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
> > > >
> > > > I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> > > > obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> > > > rights whenever possible.
> > >
> > > It does no such thing.
> > > The First Amendment like all Amendments prevents the government from
> > > interfering with your basic freedoms. The Constitution does not apply
> > > between conflicts between private citizens.
> >
> > Oh jeezis! Please read the thread before replying.
>
> And your issue is where?
> The federal or state government is not obligated for ensuring your first
> Amendment rights are not violated, but that the government is obligated to
> not restrict your ability to express your rights.
So, in the scenario presented, when a private party prevents me from
exercising my First Amendment rights, and I take my case to court, the
judge (who is the government at this point) is obligated to "not
restrict (my) ability to express (my) rights."
Funny, but that's just what I said, and you're arguing that I'm wrong.
Milt
> "Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:Ap-dnSneNsm...@comcast.com...
> > For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
> >
> > I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> > obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> > rights whenever possible. Canyon went ballistic and has been trying to
> > prove this wrong for almost a week. This has to be the post to end all
> > posts. Rarely have I read anything so clueless in all of my years on
> > Usenet.
>
> %%%% The whole question revolves around whether you were on his property or
> on public property. Is the sidewalk in front of his establishment his
> property or public property? In my state/ municipality you are not on public
> property unless you are standing in public right of way. The side walks are
> not public property but easements on private property and the owner has the
> right to have you removed as a disturbance just like WalMart can have you
> removed from their parking lot which is used by the public
I stated that it was a public sidewalk. I wouldn't have a claim if I
was on private property, under most circumstances.
As for your contention about sidewalks, I'd love to know where you
live, because an easement ia almost always considered public. That's
the purpose of an easement; so that the public can get from one place
to another.
Steve Canyon
>So, in the scenario presented, when a private party prevents me from
>exercising my First Amendment rights, and I take my case to court, the
>judge (who is the government at this point) is obligated to "not
>restrict (my) ability to express (my) rights."
>
Milt, is obviously too stupid to understand that a judge is not
obligated to enforce something that you do not a have a right to, and
that you do not have a First Amendment free speech right against a
private party as demonstrated by the Supreme Court ruling that says:
"Thus, while statutory or common law may in some situations extend
protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person
who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection
or redress is provided by the Constitution itself."
<shaking my head and laughing at Milt Shook>
***
"if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking out against
the store in front of which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes
your fliers and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
-- Milt Shook pretending to know about the law
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech
is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
424 U.S. 507
Steve Canyon
Linder) wrote:
>Milt <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>>For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
>>
>>I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
>>obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
>>rights whenever possible.
>
>Milt forgot to add....without any proof on his part in the form of a
>ruling or legal opinion...Its just Milt opining the way Milt has a
>tendency to do. You see, Milt is a progressive....If Milt believes
>it, he sees it.
...and he'll see it even in the face of a Supreme Court rulling that
contradicts it....
Milt is a moron....
***
"if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking out against
the store in front of which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes
your fliers and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
-- Milt Shook pretending to know about the law
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech
is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
424 U.S. 507
Milt
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:51:09 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
> >For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
> >
> >I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> >obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> >rights whenever possible. Canyon went ballistic and has been trying to
> >prove this wrong for almost a week. This has to be the post to end all
> >posts. Rarely have I read anything so clueless in all of my years on
> >Usenet.
>
> Actually, Milt made the claim that "you have the basis for a Forst
> (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no government was
> involved" and he'[s been running away fromk that claim ever since I
> showed him a cite from the Supreme Court that says:
>
> "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)
If you can read this post and make that claim, then your inability to
read is CERTIFIED. You are demonstrated ILLITERATE if you think that
what is written below in any way "runs away" from that.
I would file suit, and it would be based on the fact that I have a
First Amendment right to be on that sidewalk, and I'm giving the
government the opportunity to protect that.
There is NOTHING in the above that contradicts anything I say.
NOTHING.
The fact that you think the quote you presented means your rights
don't exist simply demonstrates what a loon you are.
>
> >Now on with the show.
> >
> > >>She doesn't say there isn't one. You simply can't
> > >>read. She simply says you can't invoke the First Amendment against a
> > >>private party.
> > >
> > >
> > > <LOL> ...and you said, "you have
> > > the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact
> > > that no government was involved."
> > >
> > > And you are obviously wrong.
> >
> >How am I wrong?
> >
> >Don't I have the right to free speech? (You have to keep reading for
> >Stevie's surprising answer to that one.)
>
> You keep leaving out the part where you say you have a right to First
> Amendment protection *AGAINST* a private citizen.
No, I didn't use the word "against". See how you have to keep
inserting words into the argument just to make your argument "valid"?
I said I have a First Amendment based lawsuit. I am going to take the
guy to court and demand that the judge "not abridge" my First
Amendment rights and stop this guy.
>
> >I'm bringing a complaint against the store owner in a government-run
> >court, am I not?
>
> Errrrr, you have no right to First Amendment protection *AGAINST* the
> store owner, you moron.
There's that word I didn't use again. I'm going to take him to court,
and force the state to assert my First Amendment rights. If they do
not, they have abridged my rights, and have violated the Constitution.
Which is EXACTLY what YOUR QUOTES claim.
>
> >Well, let's keep going, because this gets even funnier.
>
> Indeed...
>
> > >
> > > <LOL> what else is new.....
> >
> >Exactly...
> > >
> > >
> > >>What she is saying and what I am saying are two different things...
> > >>
> > >>>>>Milt *is* a moron.. <LOL>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Will Milt ever learn?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Learn that you don't know what you're talking about? Already have.
> > >>>
> > >>>So tell us, Milt, do you think that there is first amendment
> > >>>protection against a private party, or not?
> > >>
> > >>I think the government has a responsibility to protect your First
> > >>Amendment rights when a private party tries to prevent you from
> > >>exercising them, yes.
> > >
> > > <LOL> and yet the Supreme Court said "the constitutional guarantee
> > > of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> > > federal or state."
> > >
> >
> >Okay, so I'm in court, standing before the government-appointed or
> >-elected judge, and I am claiming that I have the right to be on the
> >public sidewalk. According to you, Canyon, (no wonder you're named after
> >a cartoon), the judge will have to side with the store owner, because I
> >have no right to free speech, based on the above.
>
> you have no right to First Amendment protection *AGAINST* a private
> citizen.
See how you have to keep bringing up words that I never said? You've
finally dropped "violated," at least, but you're learning. I am going
to bring suit against the store owner. It is First Amendment based,
because I am going to claim the right to use the sidewalk. The store
owner obviously disagrees. I am making one claim; he is making
another. The judge, (the government) has to choose one argument or the
other, or something in between.
According to you, the judge will rule that I DO NOT have the right to
free speech on a public sidewalk, if the store owner chooses to stop
me. now, read the two quotes YOU PRESENTED again, and tell us whya
judge would not be violating his oath by essentially authorizing the
store owner to do what he did again.
>
> >There is nothing in the above that says that, Stevie. In fact, it says
> >just the opposite. It says that the judge in that case is OBLIGATED by
> >the Constitution to GUARANTEE my free speech rights. It's right there,
> >in the very quote you keep repeating, as if it doesn't undermine your case.
>
> It says, and I quote, " the constitutional guarantee of free speech is
> a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
And yet, you're apparently claiming that a judge is not the
government. And repeating the insanity, ad nauseum, as though you
actually think it makes sense.
>
> >IOW, you're actually stupid enough to think the judge would have to side
> >AGAINST me because the store owner is a private citizen. The problem
> >with that is, the judge would then be abridging my free speech rights,
> >wouldn't he?
>
> The judge cannot abridge a right that does not exist, you moron, and
> you have no right to First Amendment free speech rights against a
> private citizen.
The right to free speech does not exist, according to Canyon.
IOW, I'm suing to assert my right to be on a public sidewalk in front
of that guy's store, and this abject MORON thinks the judge can't
possibly side with me, because the store owner isn't "the government."
Yet, the judge IS the government. But YOU claim he can simply abridge
my rights at will, despite the fact that the authorities you've
presented say he cannot.
If I bothered with a sig, that would pretty much have to be there.
>
> >Wait to answer, because this post just gets better the more Canyon dances.
> >
> > >
> > >>Look at the scenario I gave you again, and tell
> > >>me why they don't.
> > >
> > >
> > > Because "the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee
> > > only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
> >
> >Right. So explain again how the judge (the government) could rule
> >against me and NOT abridge my right to free speech...
>
> he's not abridging your rights, you moron, because the right you claim
> does not exist....
Again, he says that I don't have the right to free speech.
>
> > > <LOL> ...and no amount of whining is going to reverse their decision,
> > > Milt..
> > >
> >
> >Don't expect them to.
> >
> >(Gotta love the way he throws in a <LOL> every time he says something
> >profoundly stupid, dontcha?)
> >
> > >>If I have the right to free speech, and someone
> > >>stops me from exercising that, I take them to court.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not under the First Amendment.. <LOL>
> >
> >So, you're saying I don't actually have any free speech rights.
>
> No, I'm saying that you have no right to First Amendment free speech
> rights against a private citizen.
>
There's that word "against" again. I didn't use it. I sue in court to
demand my right of free speech be protected. According to you, the
government can abridge my rights at will, because you say so.
This is loony, Canyon.
>
> >What
> >you're actually saying (and this isn't even the dumbest thing you say in
> >this post!) is that we don't have any free speech rights;
>
> No, I'm saying that you have no right to First Amendment free speech
> rights against a private citizen.
I never said I did. I said that, if someone prevents me from
exercising my rights, I can take him to court and demand the
government protect them. Which they have to do.
>
> >we just can't
> >be stopped by the GOVERNMENT. ANYONE ELSE can prevent us from exercising
> >our rights and we have no recourse.
>
> Unless they break some law(s).... <shrug> people can do what they
> want unless they break some law(s).
Oh, that's priceless, too. Anyone else bother with a sig, because you
have some juicy ones here.
If the judge declares that i have a right to be on the public
sidewalk, the minute the store owner takes steps to try to stop me, he
IS breaking the law. Judges' orders ARE law.
>
> >Jesus. I'm sure glad I don't live in your America.
> > >
> > >
> > >>The court is the
> > >>government. Now, are you seriously going to tell me the judge has no
> > >>obligation to side with me and help protect my First Amendment rights?
> > >
> > >
> > > <ROTFLMAO> Errrrr, I've been telling you that and I've been backing
> > > it up with the words from a SCOTUS ruling, you moron...
> >
> >I know, and it sounds dumber every time you say it.
> >
> > >
> > > and all you're doing is repeating your stupid claim over and over.....
> >
> >You're claim is that we have no free speech rights, and the judge can
> >abridge my free speech rights at will, even though he's "the government"
> >and, according to your oft-repeated quote, ONLY the government
> >guarantees my free speech rights.
>
> No, my claim is that you have no right to First Amendment free speech
> rights against a private citizen.
Repeating a straw man doesn't make it a real argument.
>
> >So let's recap. The government guarantees my free speech rights, unless
> >a judge decides not to, because he's reading Canyon's posts on Usenet.
>
> No, the government guarantees your free speech rights only against
> abridgment by government, federal or state.
> U.S. Supreme Court
> HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
And the judge is NOT the government?
Obviously you don't...
>
> > >>Jesus, you have a hard head. Unfortunately, it seems to be filled with
> > >>oatmeal...
> > >
> > >
> > > <LOL> Try as hard as he can, Milt just can't make a falsehood become
> > > true....
> > >
> >
> >Oh, yeah. I'm the one perpetrating a falsehood. YOU are the one trying
> >to convince us that a judge can abridge free speech rights at will,
> >despite the fact that your own quote says otherwise.
>
> No, I'm saying "Thus, while statutory or common law may in some
> situations extend protection or provide redress against a private
> corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression of
> others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution
> itself.
> U.S. Supreme Court
> HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
So, the judge is not "the government"?
>
> > >>>>Got it so far?
> > >>>
> > >>>Yeah, you've presented an example of persons probably violating a
> > >>>state or local law...
> > >>
> > >>I haven't even mentioned any criminal statutes. If I take him to
> > >>court, the matter is civil, not criminal.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you take a private party to court on the basis of the First
> > > Amendment you'll lose because "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)
> >
> >First problem; the plaintiff was on private property, not public.
>
> <shrug> So what?
So what? The scenario I set made clear I was on a public sidewalk. No
one has free speech rights on private property, under most
circumstances.
>
> >Second problem: Stevie conveniently picks and chooses his "arguments."
> >
> >"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
> >free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> >federal or state. See Columbia [***203] Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
> >Democratic National Comm., 412 U.S. 94. Thus, while statutory or common
> >law may in some situations extend protection or provide redress against
> >a private corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression
> >of others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution
> >itself.
>
> See the part that says.. "no such protection or redress is provided by
> the Constitution
> >itself."
Yeah, so? It was on private property.
>
> >"This elementary proposition is little more than a truism. But even
> >truisms are not always unexceptionably true, and an exception to this
> >one was recognized almost 30 years ago in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S.
> >501. In Marsh, a Jehovah's Witness who had distributed literature
> >without a license on a sidewalk in Chickasaw, Ala., was convicted of
> >criminal trespass. Chickasaw was a so-called company town, wholly owned
> >by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corp. It was described in the Court's opinion
> >as follows...
> >
> >(Description of typical company town snipped.)
> >
> >"The Court's opinion pointed out that the First and Fourteenth
> >Amendments would clearly have protected the picketing if it had taken
> >place on a public sidewalk: S
>
> errrrr, no the case revolved around the fact that the town was a
> company town and the company, was a d facto government....
Read it again, illiterate. "...would clearly have protected the
picketing.. on a public sidewalk."
>
> >"It is clear that if the shopping center premises were not privately
> >owned but instead constituted the business area of a municipality, which
> >they to a large extent resemble, petitioners could not be barred from
> >exercising their First Amendment rights there on the sole ground that
> >title to the property was in the municipality. Lovell v. Griffin, 303
> >U.S. 444 (1938); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Schneider v. State,
> >308 U.S. 147 (1939); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943). The essence
> >of those opinions is that streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar
> >public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First
> >Amendment rights that access to them for the purpose of exercising such
> >rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely." 391
> >U.S., at 315.I"
> >
> >Hmmm... so what does that mean?
> >
> >That means, if the store owner stopped me from exercising my First
> >Amendment rights, and I petition the government for redress, and the
> >judge DOES NOT issue any sort of order stopping the store owner from
> >repeating his actions, he would be effectively abridging my right to
> >free speech.
>
> Milt, Milt, Milt, the judge cannot abridge a right that does not exist
> and you do *NOT* have a First Amendment right of protection against a
> private citizen.
You mean to tell me, after reading the above, you're going to
reiterate the same nonsense?
This isn't even fair. You obviously don't have the two brain cells
necessary to create a spark.
>
> > >>>>Now, the protester sues in court, and asserts that he has a First
> > >>>>Amendment right to be on the public sidewalk handing out fliers and
> that
> > >>>>the store owner's action prevented him from exercising his rights.
> > >>>
> > >>><LOL> There is no First Amendment protection "right" against a
> > >>>private party....
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>So, the judge has no obligation to enforce my right to free speech,
> > >>and issue an order to prevent the store owner from doing the same
> > >>things again?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah... <shaking my head and smiling>
> > >
> > >>Wanna bet?
> > >
> > >
> > > <LOL> Is "wanna bet" your new argument?
> > >
> > > You sound like a child, Milt....
> >
> >I'm not the one claiming that a judge doesn't have an obligation to
> >protect your Constitutional rights.
>
> I'm simply telling you that a judge has no obligation regarding
> nonexistent rights...
You're right. But you and Jeffrey are the only ones claiming the right
doesn't exist, because one of the parties in the suit is not the
government. That's absurd. One of the parties IS the government. You
see, there are THREE parties in every lawsuit. The plaintiff, the
defendant and THE JUDGE. THE JUDGE is THE GOVERNMENT. Are you getting
this yet?
>
> > >>>>Now,
> > >>>>think a little; isn't a judge hearing this case going to use that as a
> > >>>>basis for his ruling?
> > >>>
> > >>>Nope, The Supreme Court says there is no basis for First Amendment
> > >>>protection against a private party, so a judge cannot rule otherwise.
> > >>
> > >>So, in Stevie World, I could march outside the White House holding a
> > >>sign saying "Dubya is a bad president" and if a line of large burly
> > >>KBR employees intimidates me, without hitting me or physically
> > >>assaulting me, I have NO RECOURSE in the courts.
> > >
> > >
> > > <LOL> Intimidates you? <ROTFLMAO>
> >
> >Note that he doesn't answer the question.
>
> You'd have to show some law prohibiting intimidation for that to be
> valid, Milt.
No I wouldn't. I am entitled to use the public sidewalk. I have the
right to use it. I have the right to free speech on it. There is no
question of any of that, no matter how much you sputter. If YOU lead
me away and keep me from exercising my rights, I get to go to court
and force the government to assert my rights. The judge will then
issue a restraining order and if you violate that restraining order,
you've broken the law. But the judge IS under obligation to NOT
ABRIDGE my free speech rights.
I see. But based on your claims, it wouldn't matter.
>
> You're still a moron Milt.
And yet I am seriously kicking your ass...
Told ya he wouldn't read it...
>
> > >>Amazing.
> > >>
> > >>So tell us, Moron --
> > >>
> > >>If the government is not allowed to make law abridging my freedom of
> > >>speech, and a judge makes a decision which either doesn't acknowledge
> > >>or denies my freedom of speech, how is that judge NOT making a law
> > >>"abridging the freedom of speech"? You do know that a judge's decision
> > >>has the force of law, until such time as it's overturned by another
> > >>court, right?
> > >
> > >
> > > He can't be infringing on your rights for refusing to enforce a right
> > > that doesn't exist in the first place... And you do NOT have a right
> > > to free speech infringement by a private party under the First
> > > Amendment....
> >
> >You're right. I don't. Jesus. Do you even read what you write? I mean, I
> >misspell words, but really...
> >
> >So your argument is that you do NOT have a right to free speech on a
> >public sidewalk, period, unless it's the government stopping you.
>
> No, Milt, my argument is you do *NOT* have a First Amendment right of
> protection against a private citizen.
I never said I did. I said I would take him to court based on the
First Amendment. I mean, Jesus, if you have a right, but you can't get
the government to protect it, WTF good is it?
Again; the JUDGE IS THE GOVERNMENT.
How come the government can abridge your freedom of speech, when no
one else in the government can? Please provide us with the source for
this special dispensation.
> >The judge is the government.
> >Therefore, the judge guarantees my free speech.
>
> "only against abridgment by government."
> "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)
>
>
> <shaking my head and smiling> ...and Milt used to post from
> "law.com."
You have to laugh at this. I have never seen anyone -- even on Usenet
-- that was so dense. This is like they took Dana and Jeffrey and
combined their lunacy.
>
> You're a moron, Milt.
>
> >Case closed.
>
> OMG, Milt has said it lots of times, therefore it *must* be true....
> ***
>
It is true.
And that's according to the quotes that YOU yourself provided.
David Moffitt
"Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote in message
news:8c046319.0405...@posting.google.com...
%%%% It will depend on if you are responsible for what happens on the
walkway. If someone falls can you be sued? Does the municipality force you
without compensation to maintain the area? If so you can have someone
removed from said area that is causing problems with your business.
Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for No one else, I don't even Speak
for me. All my personalities and the spirits that I channel disavow all
knowledge of my activities. In fact, all my personalities and channeled
spirits hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
Milt
> Milt <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
> >
> >I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> >obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> >rights whenever possible.
>
> Milt forgot to add....without any proof on his part in the form of a
> ruling or legal opinion...Its just Milt opining the way Milt has a
> tendency to do. You see, Milt is a progressive....If Milt believes
> it, he sees it.
>
> JSL
Jeffrey, you really should read the post again. The proof is in what
Canyon posted. He's proving my point, dumbass. I also posted a few
other things.
Jeffrey's a Right Wing True Believer. He's gullible when it comes to
anything someone he likes says, but incapable of accepting anything
that's true...
David Moffitt
%%%% You do not have the right to interfere with he operation of his
business and create a public disturbance. :o)
The opinions represented herein are the sole responsibility of the
proclaimer, and should not be interpreted as dogma, doctrine philosophy, or
anything else other than blabber. However, if you REALLY like it, then gimme
a dollar!
Milt
> >The judge is the government.
> >Therefore, the judge guarantees my free speech.
> >
>
>
>
> fallacious statement.
No, it isn't.
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme
Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
424 U.S. 507
Jesus, Canyon, it's right there in your sig..
> The Government does not unconditionally
> guarantee his free speech and it never has.
Who said "unconditionally." Man, you simply cannot make an argument
without a healthy dose of straw, can you?
> What the government does,
> in regard to the First Amendment is to guarantee free speech only
> against abridgment by government.
Which is why, when I go to a judge and demand that my First Amendment
rights be protected, he pretty much has to agree. The judge is a
GOVERNMENT JUDGE.
(The head's obviously made of granite, because he's not even beginning
to see the incongruity of what he's saying...
> That means that the First
> Amendment does not guarantee free speech against abridgements by a
> non-government entity.
No one said it did. There's another heavy helping of straw...
THE JUDGE is NOT a "non-government entity."
> That also means that a judge cannot guarantee
> free speech against abridgement by a non-government entity either.
No one said he had to. But he has to try. He has to order the store
owner to cease and desist, because to NOT do so would abridge my right
to free speech.
God, you are simply NOT GETTING THIS, are you?
> This whole discussion is sort of funny. It shows that Milt has grown
> up hearing talk about guaranteeing free speech and, like I would
> expect from a liberal, he just assumed that what he was told was
> accurate and complete and so he never bothered to look into it see for
> himself.
>
Oh, Lord. Canyon is so gullible, he believes himself when even his own
evidence contradicts him.
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme
Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
424 U.S. 507
What part of the above would NOT obligate the judge to protect my free
speech rights on a public sidewalk, Canyon?
Milt
> On 18 May 2004 05:52:32 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> >So, in the scenario presented, when a private party prevents me from
> >exercising my First Amendment rights, and I take my case to court, the
> >judge (who is the government at this point) is obligated to "not
> >restrict (my) ability to express (my) rights."
> >
Watch Stevie dance!
>
> Milt, is obviously too stupid to understand that a judge is not
> obligated to enforce something that you do not a have a right to, and
> that you do not have a First Amendment free speech right against a
> private party as demonstrated by the Supreme Court ruling that says:
Just once, can you try to argue without creating a straw man?
I didn't use the word "enforce." That's one of your "power words,"
along with "violate" that means nothing in this argument.
> "Thus, while statutory or common law may in some situations extend
> protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person
> who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection
> or redress is provided by the Constitution itself."
A judge isn't a "private corporation or person," Dumbass.
>
> <shaking my head and laughing at Milt Shook>
>
We're all laughing, Canyon...
Let's look at this again, since Stevie is dumb enough to put this in
his sig...
> ***
>
>
> "if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking out against
> the store in front of which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes
> your fliers and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
> the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
> government was involved."
>
> -- Milt Shook pretending to know about the law
>
>
> "It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech
> is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
>
> -- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
> HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
> 424 U.S. 507
If your rights are guaranteed by the government, why is a judge
exempt?
Milt
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:50:17 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
> Linder) wrote:
>
> >Milt <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> >>For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
> >>
> >>I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> >>obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> >>rights whenever possible.
> >
> >Milt forgot to add....without any proof on his part in the form of a
> >ruling or legal opinion...Its just Milt opining the way Milt has a
> >tendency to do. You see, Milt is a progressive....If Milt believes
> >it, he sees it.
>
> ...and he'll see it even in the face of a Supreme Court rulling that
> contradicts it....
The Supreme Court "rulling" doesn't contradict me. It contradicts YOU.
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme
Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
The Judge is "the government." herefore, the judge has to do his/her
best to guarantee my free speech rights.
>
> Milt is a moron....
And yet, I'm kicking your ass, and you're too stupid to see it.
That makes you a moron's bitch...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote in message news:<40aa0625....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>...
>> Milt <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
>> >
>> >I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
>> >obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
>> >rights whenever possible.
>>
>> Milt forgot to add....without any proof on his part in the form of a
>> ruling or legal opinion...Its just Milt opining the way Milt has a
>> tendency to do. You see, Milt is a progressive....If Milt believes
>> it, he sees it.
>>
>> JSL
>
>Jeffrey, you really should read the post again. The proof is in what
>Canyon posted. He's proving my point, dumbass. I also posted a few
>other things.
OK. I did. Now please post any ruling or law that supports your
claim.
>Jeffrey's a Right Wing True Believer. He's gullible when it comes to
>anything someone he likes says, but incapable of accepting anything
>that's true...
Your opinion is not truth Milt. Surely in the 200+ year history of
this nation such an instance has occurred and you can produce a legal
opinion or ruling on the matter.
JSL
Steve Canyon
>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<bg2ka09stp0lsneiv...@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 May 2004 05:52:32 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>>
>> >So, in the scenario presented, when a private party prevents me from
>> >exercising my First Amendment rights, and I take my case to court, the
>> >judge (who is the government at this point) is obligated to "not
>> >restrict (my) ability to express (my) rights."
>> >
>
>Watch Stevie dance!
>>
>> Milt, is obviously too stupid to understand that a judge is not
>> obligated to enforce something that you do not a have a right to, and
>> that you do not have a First Amendment free speech right against a
>> private party as demonstrated by the Supreme Court ruling that says:
>
>Just once, can you try to argue without creating a straw man?
It's not a straw man you moron. You are trying to claim that a judge
is supposed to declare that you have a right to First Amendment
protection against a private party and the fact is that you don't so
he can't declare that you do....
>I didn't use the word "enforce." That's one of your "power words,"
>along with "violate" that means nothing in this argument.
>
>> "Thus, while statutory or common law may in some situations extend
>> protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person
>> who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection
>> or redress is provided by the Constitution itself."
>
>A judge isn't a "private corporation or person," Dumbass.
<Shaking my head and laughing again> The judge isn't th guy that
interfered with your speech, you moron, he's just the guy that tells
you that you have no right to First Amendment free speech protection
against the private party that did.....
Steve Canyon
>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<hvnja058e00jhq00a...@4ax.com>...
>> You keep leaving out the part where you say you have a right to First
>> Amendment protection *AGAINST* a private citizen.
>
>No, I didn't use the word "against". See how you have to keep
>inserting words into the argument just to make your argument "valid"?
>I said I have a First Amendment based lawsuit. I am going to take the
>guy to court and demand that the judge "not abridge" my First
>Amendment rights and stop this guy.
You're going to demand that the judge "stop this guy?" ...and you
actually want to try to claim that by so doing you aren't demanding
First Amendment protection *AGAINST* a private citizen.
<LOL> Does that sum up your position, Milt?
>> >I'm bringing a complaint against the store owner in a government-run
>> >court, am I not?
>>
>> Errrrr, you have no right to First Amendment protection *AGAINST* the
>> store owner, you moron.
>
>There's that word I didn't use again. I'm going to take him to court,
>and force the state to assert my First Amendment rights. If they do
>not, they have abridged my rights, and have violated the Constitution.
>Which is EXACTLY what YOUR QUOTES claim.
You're going to take him, the private citizen, to court and try to
force the state to assert your First Amendment rights over this guy,
who is a private party, but that's not the same as trying to get First
Amendment protection against a private party?
<LOL> Is that what you're trying to have everyone believe?
What you said is that this guy somehow interfered with your speech and
you're suing him because of it...
...and what you are asking the judge to do is protect you against this
guy...
>According to you, the judge will rule that I DO NOT have the right to
>free speech on a public sidewalk, if the store owner chooses to stop
>me.
No, you still have the right you always had, which is protection
against government interference with your speech...
> now, read the two quotes YOU PRESENTED again, and tell us whya
>judge would not be violating his oath by essentially authorizing the
>store owner to do what he did again.
Because he cannot protect your free speech against a private citizen,
because you have no such right.....
>> >There is nothing in the above that says that, Stevie. In fact, it says
>> >just the opposite. It says that the judge in that case is OBLIGATED by
>> >the Constitution to GUARANTEE my free speech rights. It's right there,
>> >in the very quote you keep repeating, as if it doesn't undermine your case.
>>
>> It says, and I quote, " the constitutional guarantee of free speech is
>> a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
>
>And yet, you're apparently claiming that a judge is not the
>government. And repeating the insanity, ad nauseum, as though you
>actually think it makes sense.
Of course the judge is the government, but he's not the one that
interfered with your speech, you moron.
>> >IOW, you're actually stupid enough to think the judge would have to side
>> >AGAINST me because the store owner is a private citizen. The problem
>> >with that is, the judge would then be abridging my free speech rights,
>> >wouldn't he?
>>
>> The judge cannot abridge a right that does not exist, you moron, and
>> you have no right to First Amendment free speech rights against a
>> private citizen.
>
>The right to free speech does not exist, according to Canyon.
No, according to me and the Supreme Court, you simply have no First
Amendment free speech rights against a private citizen.
>IOW, I'm suing to assert my right to be on a public sidewalk in front
>of that guy's store, and this abject MORON thinks the judge can't
>possibly side with me, because the store owner isn't "the government."
>Yet, the judge IS the government. But YOU claim he can simply abridge
>my rights at will, despite the fact that the authorities you've
>presented say he cannot.
The judge isn't abridging your rights, he's simply telling that he has
no power to protect you from whatever the other guy was doing that
upset you so much....
Errrrr, you think people can't do whatever they want unless they break
the law? How so?
>If the judge declares that i have a right to be on the public
>sidewalk, the minute the store owner takes steps to try to stop me, he
>IS breaking the law. Judges' orders ARE law.
You seem to be hung up on this phrase "right to be on the public
sidewalk." It's actually in incorrect paraphrase of what the First
Amendment actually says... Your right to be there is protected only
against abridgement by the government.
>> >Jesus. I'm sure glad I don't live in your America.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>The court is the
>> > >>government. Now, are you seriously going to tell me the judge has no
>> > >>obligation to side with me and help protect my First Amendment rights?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > <ROTFLMAO> Errrrr, I've been telling you that and I've been backing
>> > > it up with the words from a SCOTUS ruling, you moron...
>> >
>> >I know, and it sounds dumber every time you say it.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > and all you're doing is repeating your stupid claim over and over.....
>> >
>> >You're claim is that we have no free speech rights, and the judge can
>> >abridge my free speech rights at will, even though he's "the government"
>> >and, according to your oft-repeated quote, ONLY the government
>> >guarantees my free speech rights.
>>
>> No, my claim is that you have no right to First Amendment free speech
>> rights against a private citizen.
>
>Repeating a straw man doesn't make it a real argument.
But you're still not going to get any First Amendment protection
against a private party...
Sorry, if you thought you would...
>> >So let's recap. The government guarantees my free speech rights, unless
>> >a judge decides not to, because he's reading Canyon's posts on Usenet.
>>
>> No, the government guarantees your free speech rights only against
>> abridgment by government, federal or state.
>> U.S. Supreme Court
>> HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
>
>And the judge is NOT the government?
He's not the guy that interfered with your speech that you're asking
for protection from, you moron.
>> > >
>> >
>> >Oh, yeah. I'm the one perpetrating a falsehood. YOU are the one trying
>> >to convince us that a judge can abridge free speech rights at will,
>> >despite the fact that your own quote says otherwise.
>>
>> No, I'm saying "Thus, while statutory or common law may in some
>> situations extend protection or provide redress against a private
>> corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression of
>> others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution
>> itself.
>> U.S. Supreme Court
>> HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
>
>So, the judge is not "the government"?
<Rolling my eyes...> the judge not the guy that interfered with your
speech that you're asking for protection from, you moron.
>> > >>>>Got it so far?
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Yeah, you've presented an example of persons probably violating a
>> > >>>state or local law...
>> > >>
>> > >>I haven't even mentioned any criminal statutes. If I take him to
>> > >>court, the matter is civil, not criminal.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If you take a private party to court on the basis of the First
>> > > Amendment you'll lose because "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)
>> >
>> >First problem; the plaintiff was on private property, not public.
>>
>> <shrug> So what?
>
>So what? The scenario I set made clear I was on a public sidewalk. No
>one has free speech rights on private property, under most
>circumstances.
Whether or not you were on public or private property has nothing to
do with whether or not you have First Amendment rights against a
private party...
BTW, you don't, as ruled by the SCOTUS...
>> >(Description of typical company town snipped.)
>> >
>> >"The Court's opinion pointed out that the First and Fourteenth
>> >Amendments would clearly have protected the picketing if it had taken
>> >place on a public sidewalk: S
>>
>> errrrr, no the case revolved around the fact that the town was a
>> company town and the company, was a d facto government....
>
>Read it again, illiterate. "...would clearly have protected the
>picketing.. on a public sidewalk."
Yeah, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INTERFERING WITH THE PICKETERS
WAS THE GOVERNMENT.....
>> Milt, Milt, Milt, the judge cannot abridge a right that does not exist
>> and you do *NOT* have a First Amendment right of protection against a
>> private citizen.
>
>You mean to tell me, after reading the above, you're going to
>reiterate the same nonsense?
You think the Supreme Court ruling is nonsense?
>> I'm simply telling you that a judge has no obligation regarding
>> nonexistent rights...
>
>You're right. But you and Jeffrey are the only ones claiming the right
>doesn't exist, because one of the parties in the suit is not the
>government. That's absurd. One of the parties IS the government. You
>see, there are THREE parties in every lawsuit. The plaintiff, the
>defendant and THE JUDGE. THE JUDGE is THE GOVERNMENT. Are you getting
>this yet?
<rolling my eyes> The judge is a party in the lawsuit?
>>
>> You'd have to show some law prohibiting intimidation for that to be
>> valid, Milt.
>
>No I wouldn't. I am entitled to use the public sidewalk. I have the
>right to use it. I have the right to free speech on it. There is no
>question of any of that, no matter how much you sputter. If YOU lead
>me away and keep me from exercising my rights, I get to go to court
>and force the government to assert my rights.
It depends upon whether the "you" in your example is an agent of the
government or not...
>The judge will then
>issue a restraining order and if you violate that restraining order,
>you've broken the law. But the judge IS under obligation to NOT
>ABRIDGE my free speech rights.
Errrr, and this restraining order against a private citizen isn't a
form of protection against the private citizen...
a protection that the Supreme Court says you don't have....
I see your argument, Milt... <LOL>
It's totally bizarre
Like yourself...
>> > >>Basically, what
>> > >>you're saying is, I have NO freedom of speech, because any moron who
>> > >>doesn't happen to work for the government can stifle my free speech,
>> > >>and NO JUDGE (who work for the government, btw -- I don't know how
>> > >>many times I have to give Canyon that hint before he gets it) has ANY
>> > >>obligation to protect my free speech rights.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > <LOL> All you need to do is show a case where that happened, Milt...
>> >
>>
>> <LOL> The problem with this example, Milt, is that it was the
>> private property owner that made the suit against the picketer, not
>> the other way around as in your claim.
>
>I see. But based on your claims, it wouldn't matter.
Yes it would matter, Milt. You see when the property owner sues the
picketer, he's asking the judge to proclaim that what the picketer is
doing is illegal. You should have understood that when the judge
asked "what law has he broken?"
That's a very different situation from this hypothetical case of yours
where the property owner took some action that was apparently
perfectly legal to stop the picketer and the picketer asks the court
to say that what the property owner did was illegal. Again, the judge
would ask, what law has he broken?
Do you think that a judge should stop the private citizen from doing
something that is perfectly legal?
>> >(Yes, I know, the school officials are the government. But read what it
>> >says about the public sidewalks. Wow.)
>>
>> <LOL> Another Milt Shook diversion.. The case was decided because the
>> school officials were government agents, not private citizens..
>
>Told ya he wouldn't read it...
>>
>> >So your argument is that you do NOT have a right to free speech on a
>> >public sidewalk, period, unless it's the government stopping you.
>>
>> No, Milt, my argument is you do *NOT* have a First Amendment right of
>> protection against a private citizen.
>
>I never said I did. I said I would take him to court based on the
>First Amendment. I mean, Jesus, if you have a right, but you can't get
>the government to protect it, WTF good is it?
That's the point. You have no right of free speech protection against
a private citizen...
***
"if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking out against
the store in front of which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes
your fliers and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
-- Milt Shook pretending to know about the law
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech
is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
424 U.S. 507
Steve Canyon
>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<67rja0duck2j1g406...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:51:09 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The government guarantees my free speech.
>> >The judge is the government.
>> >Therefore, the judge guarantees my free speech.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> So this is the crux of Milt's argument, and he starts out with a
>> fallacious statement.
>
>No, it isn't.
>
>"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
>free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
>federal or state."
>
>-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme
>Court
>HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
>424 U.S. 507
>
>Jesus, Canyon, it's right there in your sig..
>
>> The Government does not unconditionally
>> guarantee his free speech and it never has.
>
>Who said "unconditionally." Man, you simply cannot make an argument
>without a healthy dose of straw, can you?
So we agree that the right to free speech *IS* conditional. So now,
what is it conditional upon? Could it be that it is conditional only
to the extent that it's the government that's trying to abridge it?
>> What the government does,
>> in regard to the First Amendment is to guarantee free speech only
>> against abridgment by government.
>
>Which is why, when I go to a judge and demand that my First Amendment
>rights be protected, he pretty much has to agree. The judge is a
>GOVERNMENT JUDGE.
>
>(The head's obviously made of granite, because he's not even beginning
>to see the incongruity of what he's saying...
>
>> That means that the First
>> Amendment does not guarantee free speech against abridgements by a
>> non-government entity.
>
>No one said it did. There's another heavy helping of straw...
>
>THE JUDGE is NOT a "non-government entity."
But he's also not the guy that interfered with your speech....
<rolling my eyes>
>> That also means that a judge cannot guarantee
>> free speech against abridgement by a non-government entity either.
>
>No one said he had to. But he has to try. He has to order the store
>owner to cease and desist, because to NOT do so would abridge my right
>to free speech.
You have no right to free speech in regard to what the store owner
does....
>God, you are simply NOT GETTING THIS, are you?
Irony anyone?
>> This whole discussion is sort of funny. It shows that Milt has grown
>> up hearing talk about guaranteeing free speech and, like I would
>> expect from a liberal, he just assumed that what he was told was
>> accurate and complete and so he never bothered to look into it see for
>> himself.
>>
>
>Oh, Lord. Canyon is so gullible, he believes himself when even his own
>evidence contradicts him.
>
>"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
>free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
>federal or state."
>
>-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme
>Court
>HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
>424 U.S. 507
>
>What part of the above would NOT obligate the judge to protect my free
>speech rights on a public sidewalk, Canyon?
The part that says he cannot protect you against what a private party
does...
***
"if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking out against
the store in front of which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes
your fliers and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
-- Milt Shook pretending to know about the law
Steve Canyon
>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<t03ka0debng934k04...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:50:17 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>> Linder) wrote:
>>
>> >Milt <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
>> >>
>> >>I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
>> >>obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
>> >>rights whenever possible.
>> >
>> >Milt forgot to add....without any proof on his part in the form of a
>> >ruling or legal opinion...Its just Milt opining the way Milt has a
>> >tendency to do. You see, Milt is a progressive....If Milt believes
>> >it, he sees it.
>>
>> ...and he'll see it even in the face of a Supreme Court rulling that
>> contradicts it....
>
>The Supreme Court "rulling" doesn't contradict me. It contradicts YOU.
>
>"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
>free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
>federal or state."
>
>-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme
>Court
> HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
>
>The Judge is "the government." herefore, the judge has to do his/her
>best to guarantee my free speech rights.
At first I thought Shook must have been joking when he introduced this
nonsense about the judge being required to protect his free speech
rights against a private party because to do otherwise meant that the
*JUDGE* was violating his rights, even though the private party
couldn't be violating them...
I thought, "is Shook really this stupid?" But no, he really is that
stupid...
Milt says that:
(1) the private party wouldn't be violating his rights because he has
no such rights against a private party,
(2) ....but if a judge rules according to (1) the judge would then be
violating his rights by so ruling
and Milt claims to have some knowledge in law....
I'm starting to feel pretty bad for Milt.
Milt
Milt
Jesus... do you have anything relevant to offer?
David Hartung
> On 18 May 2004 11:44:55 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> >Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:<bg2ka09stp0lsneiv...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 18 May 2004 05:52:32 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >So, in the scenario presented, when a private party prevents me from
> >> >exercising my First Amendment rights, and I take my case to court, the
> >> >judge (who is the government at this point) is obligated to "not
> >> >restrict (my) ability to express (my) rights."
> >> >
> >
> >Watch Stevie dance!
> >>
> >> Milt, is obviously too stupid to understand that a judge is not
> >> obligated to enforce something that you do not a have a right to, and
> >> that you do not have a First Amendment free speech right against a
> >> private party as demonstrated by the Supreme Court ruling that says:
> >
> >Just once, can you try to argue without creating a straw man?
>
> It's not a straw man you moron. You are trying to claim that a judge
> is supposed to declare that you have a right to First Amendment
> protection against a private party and the fact is that you don't so
> he can't declare that you do....
To put it another way, how can a private individual violate anyone's
constitutional rights?
Dana
> Dana wrote:
> > "Ž" <nos...@at.com> wrote in message
> > news:E6hqc.18233$gr.1523657@attbi_s52...
> >
> >>"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
> >>news:c69f4edb9779feb0...@news.meganetnews.com...
> >>
> >>>"Milt" <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:Ap-dnSneNsm...@comcast.com...
> >>>
> >>>>For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
> >>>>
> >>>>I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> >>>>obligation on the part of the government to protect your free speech
> >>>>rights whenever possible.
> >>>
> >>>It does no such thing.
> >>>The First Amendment like all Amendments prevents the government from
> >>>interfering with your basic freedoms. The Constitution does not apply
> >>>between conflicts between private citizens.
> >>
> >>Oh jeezis! Please read the thread before replying.
> >
> >
> > And your issue is where?
> > The federal or state government is not obligated for ensuring your first
> > Amendment rights are not violated, but that the government is obligated
to
> > not restrict your ability to express your rights.
> >
> Dana, try -- JUST TRY -- to read the entire thread. In context, you're
> sounding like a reactionary idiot.
And again, your view of the First Amendment is incorrect.
Dana
It is not up to the government to protect that right. The government cannot
restrict you from being on that sidewalk.
Another private citizen can remove you from said sidewalk.
You would not have a A first Amendment claim if a private citizen removed
you from the sidewalk.
Dana
news:<67rja0duck2j1g406...@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:51:09 -0400, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >The government guarantees my free speech.
> > >The judge is the government.
> > >Therefore, the judge guarantees my free speech.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > So this is the crux of Milt's argument, and he starts out with a
> > fallacious statement.
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes it is.
>
> "It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
> free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> federal or state."
See, you just proved what Steve has been saying.
Dana
And the Judge/government has done nothing to restrict your rights, hence you
would not be allowed to file a claim based on the fact that your 1st
Amendment rights were infringed upon. Since the government or any person
acting on behalf of the government did not restrict your rights, you have no
legal standing to claim your 1st Amendment rights were violated.
Your 1st Amendments rights only cover governmental actions, and not the
actions of other private citizens.
You can try to take the person to Civil Court, but unless some kind of
violent act as done to your person, you really have no case to claim any
damages.
Now if the private person did use violence against you, you can file a
police report, and try to get the person arrested for assault charges.
Mitchell Holman
@fe2.columbus.rr.com:
When that private individual is a "private contractor"
used by government to extract information from you, perhaps?
David Moffitt
%%%% Avoidence of the question noted and your concession is accepted.
David Moffitt
%%%% Answer the question Milt: Do you have the right to interfere with the
business operation and create a public disturbance?
Campaign ribbon: Medal for valor (Bronze Star, Silver Star, etc): You did
something really stupid that worked, and your side saw me do it.
Purple Heart: You did something really stupid that didn't work, and the
enemy saw you do it.
Milt
Actually, no. Canyon DISproved his argument by presenting that quote.
A judge is "the government." Therefore, a judge can't abridge your
freedom of speech anymore than John Ashcroft or John Kerry can...
Milt
Okay, I'll answer..
Who gives a shit? I answered all of this previously. If you and
Jeffrey choose to jump into the middle of a thread without looking
into where it came from,. the problem is not ours...
Milt
> On 18 May 2004 11:44:55 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> >Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<bg2ka09stp0lsneiv...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 18 May 2004 05:52:32 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >So, in the scenario presented, when a private party prevents me from
> >> >exercising my First Amendment rights, and I take my case to court, the
> >> >judge (who is the government at this point) is obligated to "not
> >> >restrict (my) ability to express (my) rights."
> >> >
> >
> >Watch Stevie dance!
> >>
> >> Milt, is obviously too stupid to understand that a judge is not
> >> obligated to enforce something that you do not a have a right to, and
> >> that you do not have a First Amendment free speech right against a
> >> private party as demonstrated by the Supreme Court ruling that says:
> >
> >Just once, can you try to argue without creating a straw man?
>
> It's not a straw man you moron. You are trying to claim that a judge
> is supposed to declare that you have a right to First Amendment
> protection against a private party and the fact is that you don't so
> he can't declare that you do....
No, I'm not claiming that, you idiot.
Christ; you've been at this a week and you still don't even understand
the argument.
I said the government has an obligation to protect your free speech
rights when at all possible. YOU are the moron who keeps bringing
words like "against" and "violation" and irrelevant crap like that...
>
> >I didn't use the word "enforce." That's one of your "power words,"
> >along with "violate" that means nothing in this argument.
> >
> >> "Thus, while statutory or common law may in some situations extend
> >> protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person
> >> who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection
> >> or redress is provided by the Constitution itself."
> >
> >A judge isn't a "private corporation or person," Dumbass.
>
> <Shaking my head and laughing again> The judge isn't th guy that
> interfered with your speech, you moron, he's just the guy that tells
> you that you have no right to First Amendment free speech protection
> against the private party that did.....
There's that straw man again. Please show me where I EVER said the
judge would have to rule AGAINST anyone.
This is the problem when dealing with right wing morons. They can only
think one way.
One more time;
I am handing out fliers on the public sidewalk in front of your store.
(I am breaking no laws, and I am not blocking the entrance.-- Happy,
Moffitt?) The store owner takes my fliers and has a couple of goons
escort me off the sidewalk. I take him to court to assert my First
Amendment right to free speech, and the right to use the public
sidewalk. Note that at no time have I used the words "against",
"violate" or any of the other bales of straw you keep attempting to
insert into this.
Now, according to YOU, because the other guy is a private citizen, I
have no case. Yet, you have yet to reconcile that with the quotes that
YOU YOURSELF posted.
Key elements;
Judge, who works for the government.
Public sidewalk.
I'm not harassing people, not causing a disturbance and not inhibiting
his business in any way.
I have NEVER stated that I'm looking for compensation or anything like
that for PAST problems. Just deal with the case at hand.
My major premise is that the government has an obligation to protect
your free speech rights whenever possible.
Deal with the above, without bringing all kinds of bullshit into it.
And then explain to us why the JUDGE is more or less forced to abridge
my First Amendment rights.
Like the right to call you a moronic dumbass.
Milt
It depends on which one...
But for the record, I never said that anyone could violate anyone
else's free speech rights. That's a word Canyon injected into the mix,
because he can't argue logically. What else can you say about a guy
who thinks that a quote that says the government's guarantees your
free speech rights from being abridged by the government, proves that
a judge can abridge your free speech rights at will...
Steve Canyon
>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<1d0la05hlrcg480q2...@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 May 2004 11:44:55 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<bg2ka09stp0lsneiv...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 18 May 2004 05:52:32 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >So, in the scenario presented, when a private party prevents me from
>> >> >exercising my First Amendment rights, and I take my case to court, the
>> >> >judge (who is the government at this point) is obligated to "not
>> >> >restrict (my) ability to express (my) rights."
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Watch Stevie dance!
>> >>
>> >> Milt, is obviously too stupid to understand that a judge is not
>> >> obligated to enforce something that you do not a have a right to, and
>> >> that you do not have a First Amendment free speech right against a
>> >> private party as demonstrated by the Supreme Court ruling that says:
>> >
>> >Just once, can you try to argue without creating a straw man?
>>
>> It's not a straw man you moron. You are trying to claim that a judge
>> is supposed to declare that you have a right to First Amendment
>> protection against a private party and the fact is that you don't so
>> he can't declare that you do....
>
>No, I'm not claiming that, you idiot.
>
>Christ; you've been at this a week and you still don't even understand
>the argument.
Everybody understands your argument, you moron, it's just that I also
understand that it's wrong....
>I said the government has an obligation to protect your free speech
>rights when at all possible.
Except that the government has no obligation to protect your free
speech rights in regards to abridgment by a non government party.
>YOU are the moron who keeps bringing
>words like "against" and "violation" and irrelevant crap like that...
>>
>> >I didn't use the word "enforce." That's one of your "power words,"
>> >along with "violate" that means nothing in this argument.
>> >
>> >> "Thus, while statutory or common law may in some situations extend
>> >> protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person
>> >> who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection
>> >> or redress is provided by the Constitution itself."
>> >
>> >A judge isn't a "private corporation or person," Dumbass.
>>
>> <Shaking my head and laughing again> The judge isn't th guy that
>> interfered with your speech, you moron, he's just the guy that tells
>> you that you have no right to First Amendment free speech protection
>> against the private party that did.....
>
>There's that straw man again. Please show me where I EVER said the
>judge would have to rule AGAINST anyone.
Errrr, you said you were seeking to have the judge put a restraining
order on somebody.... You were ranting about how the judge would have
to rule in your favor.... Does that not mean that he would be ruling
against the other guy?
<Shaking my head and laughing again>
>This is the problem when dealing with right wing morons. They can only
>think one way.
>
>One more time;
>
>I am handing out fliers on the public sidewalk in front of your store.
>(I am breaking no laws, and I am not blocking the entrance.-- Happy,
>Moffitt?) The store owner takes my fliers and has a couple of goons
>escort me off the sidewalk. I take him to court to assert my First
>Amendment right to free speech, and the right to use the public
>sidewalk. Note that at no time have I used the words "against",
>"violate" or any of the other bales of straw you keep attempting to
>insert into this.
That's fine, you moron and the only crime would be a case of the theft
of your fliers and the assault upon you, which are state or local
laws. Your Constitutional free speech rights have not been abridged
because they cannot be abridged by a private citizen and when the
judge says that you have no case because of that, he isn't violating
them either.
IOW the private party can do whatever he wants to stifle, bother,
harass, shout down, or whatever, as long as he doesn't break any other
law(s)...
>Now, according to YOU, because the other guy is a private citizen, I
>have no case.
Actually, it's according to the following U.S Supreme court ruling
that says you have no First Amendment case:
"Thus, while statutory or common law may in some situations extend
protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person
who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection
or redress is provided by the Constitution itself."
U.S. Supreme Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
See where it says "no such protection or redress [...is provided by
the Constitution...] [...against a private corporation or person who
seeks to abridge the free expression of others...] "
That means that you have no case against the private party in question
who seeks to abridge your free expression...
>Key elements;
>
>Judge, who works for the government.
>Public sidewalk.
>I'm not harassing people, not causing a disturbance and not inhibiting
>his business in any way.
>I have NEVER stated that I'm looking for compensation or anything like
>that for PAST problems. Just deal with the case at hand.
>My major premise is that the government has an obligation to protect
>your free speech rights whenever possible.
...and you have not supported that claim with anything but more of
your own rhetoric....
...while I have shown where that protection has limits regarding
private parties....
>Deal with the above, without bringing all kinds of bullshit into it.
Your continuous repeat of that assertion is not sufficient to make it
come true....
The government does *NOT* have an obligation to protect your free
speech against a private citizen...
>And then explain to us why the JUDGE is more or less forced to abridge
>my First Amendment rights.
Your First Amendment rights do not include having the government take
your side against another private party in regards to the First
Amendment.
>Like the right to call you a moronic dumbass.
Irony anyone...
Steve Canyon
<LOL> A judge that correctly rules that you have no such
Constitutional right to free speech is not abridging your freedom of
speech....
***
"if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking out against
the store in front of which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes
your fliers and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
-- Milt Shook pretending to know about the law
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech
is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
Steve Canyon
...and yet the moron claims that unless a judge issues a retraining
order against a private party that broke no law, the judge would be
violating his rights..
Steve Canyon
>rights when at all possible. YOU are the moron who keeps bringing
>words like "against" and "violation" and irrelevant crap like that...
<LOL>
Irrelevant????
Milt apparently thinks the government should stop some citizen from
doing something even when that citizen hasn't violated any laws and
then he thinks that the government action wouldn't involve doing
anything against that citizen.
>
>There's that straw man again. Please show me where I EVER said the
>judge would have to rule AGAINST anyone.
Now Milt says that issuing a retraining order isn't ruling against the
person being restrained...
...and Milt thinks others have gone off the deep end...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<1d0la05hlrcg480q2...@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 May 2004 11:44:55 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<bg2ka09stp0lsneiv...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 18 May 2004 05:52:32 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >So, in the scenario presented, when a private party prevents me from
>> >> >exercising my First Amendment rights, and I take my case to court, the
>> >> >judge (who is the government at this point) is obligated to "not
>> >> >restrict (my) ability to express (my) rights."
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Watch Stevie dance!
>> >>
>> >> Milt, is obviously too stupid to understand that a judge is not
>> >> obligated to enforce something that you do not a have a right to, and
>> >> that you do not have a First Amendment free speech right against a
>> >> private party as demonstrated by the Supreme Court ruling that says:
>> >
>> >Just once, can you try to argue without creating a straw man?
>>
>> It's not a straw man you moron. You are trying to claim that a judge
>> is supposed to declare that you have a right to First Amendment
>> protection against a private party and the fact is that you don't so
>> he can't declare that you do....
>
>No, I'm not claiming that, you idiot.
>
>Christ; you've been at this a week and you still don't even understand
>the argument.
>
>I said the government has an obligation to protect your free speech
>rights when at all possible.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you Milt.
HURLEY et al. v. IRISH AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF
BOSTON et al.
"(d) The state court's application, however, had the effect of
declaring the sponsors' speech itself to be the public accommodation.
Since every participating parade unit affects the message conveyed by
the private organizers, the state courts' peculiar application of the
Massachusetts law essentially forced the Council to alter the parade's
expressive content and thereby violated the fundamental First
Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content
of his own message and, conversely, to decide what not to say.
Petitioners' claim to the benefit of this principle is sound, since
the Council selects the expressive units of the parade from potential
participants and clearly decided to exclude a message it did not like
from the communication it chose to make, and that is enough to invoke
its right as a private speaker to shape its expression by speaking on
one subject while remaining silent on another, free from state
interference. The constitutional violation is not saved by Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. ___. The Council is a
speaker in its own right; a parade does not consist of individual,
unrelated segments that happen to be transmitted together for
individual selection by members of the audience; and there is no
assertion here that some speakers will be destroyed in the absence of
the Massachusetts law. Nor has any other legitimate interest been
identified in support of applying that law in the way done by the
state courts to expressive activity like the parade. PruneYard
Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 87, and New York State Club
Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 13, distinguished. Pp.
14-23.
418 Mass. 238, 636 N. E. 2d 1293, reversed and remanded.
Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. "
You have no case under the free speech provisions of the 1st
amendment.
>Yet, you have yet to reconcile that with the quotes that
>YOU YOURSELF posted.
>
>Key elements;
>
>Judge, who works for the government.
>Public sidewalk.
>I'm not harassing people, not causing a disturbance and not inhibiting
>his business in any way.
>I have NEVER stated that I'm looking for compensation or anything like
>that for PAST problems. Just deal with the case at hand.
>My major premise is that the government has an obligation to protect
>your free speech rights whenever possible.
>
>Deal with the above, without bringing all kinds of bullshit into it.
>
>And then explain to us why the JUDGE is more or less forced to abridge
>my First Amendment rights.
HURLEY et al. v. IRISH AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF
BOSTON et al.
>
>Like the right to call you a moronic dumbass.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
HURLEY et al. v. IRISH AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF
BOSTON et al.
JSL
Milt
> On 19 May 2004 05:57:14 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
> >
> >I said the government has an obligation to protect your free speech
> >rights when at all possible. YOU are the moron who keeps bringing
> >words like "against" and "violation" and irrelevant crap like that...
>
> <LOL>
>
> Irrelevant????
>
> Milt apparently thinks the government should stop some citizen from
> doing something even when that citizen hasn't violated any laws and
> then he thinks that the government action wouldn't involve doing
> anything against that citizen.
ANOTHER non-sequiter! I NEVER said the government was STOPPING anyone,
you ass!
You keep bringing it up and I keep showing you how irrelevant it is.
Your thick skull simply can't comprehend what i mean.
>
> >
> >There's that straw man again. Please show me where I EVER said the
> >judge would have to rule AGAINST anyone.
>
> Now Milt says that issuing a retraining order isn't ruling against the
> person being restrained...
That depends on the restraint. If it's not punitive, then were's the
problem?
>
> ...and Milt thinks others have gone off the deep end...
I know you have. You keep arguing shit no one's bringing up.
Milt
> mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> >linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote in message news:<40aa0625....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>...
> >> Milt <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >For those of you not keeping track, you should be.
> >> >
> >> >I made the simple statement that the First Amendment creates an
> >> >rights whenever possible.
> >>
> >> Milt forgot to add....without any proof on his part in the form of a
> >> ruling or legal opinion...Its just Milt opining the way Milt has a
> >> tendency to do. You see, Milt is a progressive....If Milt believes
> >> it, he sees it.
> >>
> >
> >Jeffrey, you really should read the post again. The proof is in what
> >Canyon posted. He's proving my point, dumbass. I also posted a few
> >other things.
>
> OK. I did. Now please post any ruling or law that supports your
> claim.
>
If you "did," then you saw plenty of them.
You didn't.
You're a liar.
Milt
public sidewalk is NOT abridging my freedom of speech.
You're dancing so hard, you're making Michael Flatley look like Newt
Gingrich..
Milt
> On 19 May 2004 05:57:14 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> >Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<1d0la05hlrcg480q2...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 18 May 2004 11:44:55 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<bg2ka09stp0lsneiv...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> On 18 May 2004 05:52:32 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >So, in the scenario presented, when a private party prevents me from
> >> >> >exercising my First Amendment rights, and I take my case to court, the
> >> >> >judge (who is the government at this point) is obligated to "not
> >> >> >restrict (my) ability to express (my) rights."
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Watch Stevie dance!
> >> >>
> >> >> Milt, is obviously too stupid to understand that a judge is not
> >> >> obligated to enforce something that you do not a have a right to, and
> >> >> that you do not have a First Amendment free speech right against a
> >> >> private party as demonstrated by the Supreme Court ruling that says:
> >> >
> >> >Just once, can you try to argue without creating a straw man?
> >>
> >> It's not a straw man you moron. You are trying to claim that a judge
> >> is supposed to declare that you have a right to First Amendment
> >> protection against a private party and the fact is that you don't so
> >> he can't declare that you do....
> >
> >No, I'm not claiming that, you idiot.
> >
> >Christ; you've been at this a week and you still don't even understand
> >the argument.
>
> Everybody understands your argument, you moron, it's just that I also
> understand that it's wrong....
Then you don't understand it. You demonstrate it every time you repeat
the assertion that I have to right to free speech.
>
> >I said the government has an obligation to protect your free speech
> >rights when at all possible.
>
> Except that the government has no obligation to protect your free
> speech rights in regards to abridgment by a non government party.
I NEVER said it did.
You say you understand the argument, yet you say something so
profoundly stupid. First, take off "in regards to abridgment by a non
government party." Then, you might have a clue.
I feel like one of Roy Horn's tigers playing with a mouse. It's fun
for a little while, but it gets tiresome...
Steve Canyon
You think having to snip out all of your stupid claims is fun?
A sure sign that Milt is losing is when he snips out my responses to
him....
Here let me put all that you snipped out and see if you can respond to
what I posted instead of running away...
Start of re-insertion of Shook's snip....
****************************************************************
Steve Canyon
he's not going to rule that you have no constitutional right to speak
on a public sidewalk, you moron, he's simply going to rule that you
have no right to have him stop the private citizen that is bothering
you....
***
"if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking out against
the store in front of which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes
your fliers and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
-- Milt Shook pretending to know about the law
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech
is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
Steve Canyon
>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<a2sma0tahk60gj1vo...@4ax.com>...
>> On 19 May 2004 05:57:14 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>> >
>> >I said the government has an obligation to protect your free speech
>> >rights when at all possible. YOU are the moron who keeps bringing
>> >words like "against" and "violation" and irrelevant crap like that...
>>
>> <LOL>
>>
>> Irrelevant????
>>
>> Milt apparently thinks the government should stop some citizen from
>> doing something even when that citizen hasn't violated any laws and
>> then he thinks that the government action wouldn't involve doing
>> anything against that citizen.
>
>ANOTHER non-sequiter! I NEVER said the government was STOPPING anyone,
>you ass!
<LOL> You said you were going to sue this fella an get a restraining
order, didn't you, ya moron? What the hell do you think the
restraining is?
>You keep bringing it up and I keep showing you how irrelevant it is.
>Your thick skull simply can't comprehend what i mean.
>>
>> >
>> >There's that straw man again. Please show me where I EVER said the
>> >judge would have to rule AGAINST anyone.
>>
>> Now Milt says that issuing a retraining order isn't ruling against the
>> person being restrained...
>
>That depends on the restraint. If it's not punitive, then were's the
>problem?
The problem? The first problem is that you want to sue somebody for
something this guy did when you admit that he didn't even violate
anything. Just exactly what the hell are you going to sue him for if
he didn't violate anything?
Then the next problem is that you want the judge to be on your side
and to issue a restraining order against him but you say you aren't
asking the judge to rule against him. What the hell do you think it
means when the judge is "on your side" if not that he is ruling
against the other side?
Then you say that if do you get the restraining order, it wouldn't be
stopping him from doing anything. What the hell do you think a
restraining order is for if not stop somebody from doing something?
And you also say that if the Judge doesn't issue the restraining
order, he'd be violating your rights that never were being violated in
the first place
>> ...and Milt thinks others have gone off the deep end...
>
...and stop snipping my replies. if you can't figure out how to
respond to them, stand up like a man and admit it.
Milt
You just can't read, and you and Canyon do NOT understand any of the
arguments presented here.
In the scenario I presented, I was acting on my own, on a PUBLIC
sidewalk. I am going to court to assert my right to hand out fliers on
a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, where such a thing is legal.
Nothing in the above contradicts anything I've said, and in fact,
reinforces it.
The judge will side with me, because I DO have a right to use a public
sidewalk and he has an obligation to at least TRY to protect my
rights...
Oh, really? Who does the judge work for? Please explain how his saying
that I have NO RIGHT to be on that sidewalk is NOT an abridgement of
my free speech rights. I'm not on the store owner's property, I do not
work for the store owner. I don't even necessarily know the store
owner. I am on PUBLIC property and acting legally.
Yet you and Canyon insist that I don't have the right to free speech
somehow.
It is a puzzle...
This is even less fun that arguing wih granite skull canyon. Your head
is even harder. Jesus, this is lame...
Milt
Would someone please buy these idiots a clue. A nickel would buy more
than they have now...
Dana
> sidewalk. I am going to court to assert my right to hand out fliers on
> a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, where such a thing is legal.
So long as you are not harassing people, and that you are not obstructing or
diverting people from entering a private business.
And it is legal to remove you from in front of a business, and there is very
little you can do about it.
And the owner of the store can and proably would confiscate your fliers and
destroy them. And again there is nothing you can do about it, unless you can
beat him/her in a fight.
> The judge will side with me, because I DO have a right to use a public
> sidewalk and he has an obligation to at least TRY to protect my
> rights...
The Judge would not side with you, as your complaint is with a private
citizen, hence the Judge would rule your case is without merit on 1st
Amendment grounds, and he would tell you to go to civil court.
> Oh, really? Who does the judge work for? Please explain how his saying
> that I have NO RIGHT to be on that sidewalk is NOT an abridgement of
> my free speech rights.
You do not have the right to obstruct a person's business.
And since your complaint is with a private citizen, you would not have a 1st
Amendment claim.
I'm not on the store owner's property, I do not
> work for the store owner. I don't even necessarily know the store
> owner. I am on PUBLIC property and acting legally.
And the store owner is acting legally by destroying your fliers.
And the store owner can have you removed from in front of his store, and
there would be no 1st Amendment violation.
>
> Yet you and Canyon insist that I don't have the right to free speech
> somehow.
Just as someone has the freedom of expression to destroy your fliers and
remove you from in front of his store.
Your 1st Amendment rights are not being violated as no government agent is
involved. It is between you as a private citizen, and the shop owner as a
private citizen.
Steve Canyon
I think Milt is confused about who needs a clue.....
First he says that the First Amendment can be the basis of a suit even
if there is no government involved.. and that he can sue a private
party if they violate his free speech rights...
During the discussion, Milt, who says he's a paralegal, tripped back
and forth across his own words, talking about violating his rights,
then saying he never said "violated," talking about people being
arrested, then saying he never used the word "arrested," either..
Then after twisting and turning on the end of my barbs for a week and
changing his story half a dozen times, he ends up saying he isn't
going to sue the private party, who he now admits, couldn't have
violated his rights, and that the judge isn't going to stop the guy
from doing anything.
Now, Milt's decided that he's going to sue the state, apparently for
something this private party did, which didn't violate anything in the
first place...
Here's some of Milt's ever-shifting arguments...
"if you're standing on the corner, legally handing
out flyers, speaking out against the store in front of which you're
standing, and the owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big
guys remove you from in front of his building, you have the basis for
a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
"I think the government has a responsibility to protect your First
Amendment rights when a private party tries to prevent you from
exercising them, yes. Look at the scenario I gave you again, and tell
me why they don't. If I have the right to free speech, and someone
stops me from exercising that, I take them to court. The court is the
government. Now, are you seriously going to tell me the judge has no
obligation to side with me and help protect my First Amendment
rights?"
"Now, the protester sues in court, and asserts that he has a First
Amendment right to be on the public sidewalk handing out fliers and
that
the store owner's action prevented him from exercising his rights.
Now,
think a little; isn't a judge hearing this case going to use that as a
basis for his ruling? Of course he is. Why? Because to do otherwise
would mean the judge (the government!!!!) would then be making law
that
abridged the protester's right to free speech. IOW, moron, the judge
has
an obligation to protect his free speech rights to the extent
possible.
That is assuming the protester isn't harassing people for going into
the
store, or saying defamatory or slanderous things about the owner,
etc..."
"But tell you what. One more chance to make sense. If Joe Blow takes
my
fliers and escorts me from the public sidewalk in front of his store,
and I sue him, please explain to us once more why the judge --WHO
WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND TAKES AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION
-- is under no oblgation to protect my First Amendment rights and
order Joe Blow to allow me to hand oout fliers on the front sidewalk."
"You are guaranteed the right to free speech. That doesn't only
prevent
the government from quashing free speech. It also creates an
obligation on their part to protect it from others who would quash
it."
"That means, if the store owner stopped me from exercising my First
Amendment rights, and I petition the government for redress, and the
judge DOES NOT issue any sort of order stopping the store owner from
repeating his actions, he would be effectively abridging my right to
free speech."
"Get a permit to have a demonstration in the town square. If people
try
to stop you from speaking, they get arrested. Why is that?"
"If Joe Blow's free speech rights are being infringed by another
party,
and the government chooses to do nothing about it, aren't they de
facto
"making a law" abridging his free speech rights?"
"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the
Bill
of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane. That
means, if a mercenary decides to take over your house, you're screwed,
because they're not the government. In reality, you can shoot them.
Where did that come from? The government works in a lot of ways. If
someone does something to violate your right to free speech -- REALLY
violate it, not just cancel a contract or refuse to spend money to put
out your album, you take them to court. If the judge decides your free
speech rights were violated by that person, you win. Why, you ask?
Because to rule otherwise would violate the First Amendment.
"Three words to FORGET, because only YOU are bringing them up, and
they
are absolutely irrelevant to anything I said;
"violate"
"Arrest"
"sue"
or any variations thereof."
"It's why Stevie here has gotten so far away from the original
argument.
I simply made the observation that the First Amendment imposes an
obligation on the government (and since the 14th Amendment, that would
be the ENTIRE government) to protect your First Amendment rights to
the
best of their ability. I didn't use the words "arrest," "violation" or
"sue." But the fact is, if I were to sue someone for libel or slander,
the court (being part of "the government" has an obligation to protect
that other person's right to free speech, along with my right to not
be defamed..."
"Get a permit to have a demonstration in the town square. If people
try
to stop you from speaking, they get arrested. Why is that?"
"If you planned to hold a Bush fundraiser in your basement, and the
folks at your work (a private employer, not Ohio State) objected,
promising to fire you if you did that, and they followed through on
that threat, under the authority of what parts of the Bill of Rights
would you sue?"
"Nope. One has nothing to do with the other. I'll give you a hint; the
guy who's running you off the public sidewalk isn't going to win the
case. Why? BECAUSE you're guaranteed your free speech rights. IOW,
fuckwit, the judge (the government) will side with you, because
deciding
otherwise would be an abridgment of your free speech rights."
"Uh huh. And I said the First Amendment creates an obligation for the
government to protect that right. If I take someone to court because
they prevented me from exercising my right to free speech, and the
judge
says "buzz off," isn't that the very definition of the government
illegally abridging my free speech rights? In what way does anything
you
posted contradict that? IOW, if you have a permit to speak on a street
corner, and someone else without a permit shouts you down, wouldn't
inaction by the state be de facto abridging your rights, and therefore
be illegal?"
"The funny thing is, if I took some action to get you off Usenet,
(which
I would never do -- even assholes have rights), the first place you
would take me would be court. (The government) And you would win.
Then,
you would get right back on here and tell everyone that the First
Amendment only protects you from the GOVERNMENT."
"Are you really arguing that the judge (a government employee) won't
side
with you based on your free speech rights and/or prevent the store
owner
from repeating his actions? Are you really that stupid?"
"If the person is handing out fliers and is rebuffed by the store
owner
in the scenario I laid out, and he files suit based on the First
Amendment, wouldn't the judge be obligated, based on the above quote,
to
rule in the protester's favor and protect his First Amendment rights?"
"The base argument that I made was that the first amendment places an
obligation on the government to protect your free speech rights
wherever
possible. If they do not, they are de facto abridging your First
Amendment rights. See how that works? If you have a right to speak on
the street corner, no one has a right to stop you. If they do, you
have
the right to sue and the government has an obligation to stop them and
protect you."
"ANOTHER non-sequiter! I NEVER said the government was STOPPING
anyone, you ass!"
"IOW, if you had a permit to speak at one of your gay rights rallies,
and I shouted you down, no one could arrest me for doing so, and you
have no right to go to a judge and ask her/him to protect your right
to free speech?"
"Why would the judge have to rule AGAINST anyone, you clod?? Is that
the only way you can think??"
"1. The guy who interefered with me is irrelevant.
2. I never said the action I would bring would be AGAINST anyone.
That's one of your straw men, little Stevie."
"Again, it's because some store owner that I have NEVER said was even
the subject of this suit."
"And make no mistake; I WOULD get a restraining order on this guy, if
that's what it took. Of course, I never said the restraining order
would be based on the First Amendment, did I? Of course, it could
be..."
"I said the suit would be First Amendment BASED. Think a little..."
"So, the judge has no obligation to enforce my right to free speech,
and issue an order to prevent the store owner from doing the same
things again?"
"Put it this way. You have the right to stand there and hand out the
flyers, right? The law isn't allowed to make a law that would prevent
that, based on the content of the flyers. He's preventing you from
exercising your rights. What else would you base your suit on,
dipshit?
You are guaranteed the right to free speech by the government, and
he's
preventing you from exercising that. When you take him to court, the
judge (the government) is going to decide the case based on what?"
"Again; if you manage to keep me from exercising my free speech
rights,
and I take your sorry ass to court, please explain to me again why the
judge -- a government official -- is somehow exempt from the
Constitution, and free to abridge my free speech rights at will. I
wanna make sure I understad your logic, such as it is..."
"A guy takes my shit and runs me off the public sidewalk. Of course,
he's breaking the law, but that's not why I'm suing. I'm suing to get
a judge to certify that i have a First Amendment right to be on that
public sidewalk handing out fliers. It has nothing to do with putting
the guy in jail, or asserting that he "violated" a goddamn thing. It's
about forcing the government to acknowledge my rights."
"Again; my original argument was that the First Amendment creates an
obligation on the part of the government to protect my rights whenever
possible. (Note; whenever possible!) That's all. It's not about
violations or jail or any of that shit that you narrow-minded types
can't seem to get beyond. It's about demanding my rights."
"No, I didn't use the word "against". See how you have to keep
inserting words into the argument just to make your argument "valid"?
I said I have a First Amendment based lawsuit. I am going to take the
guy to court and demand that the judge "not abridge" my First
Amendment rights and stop this guy."
"See how you have to keep bringing up words that I never said? You've
finally dropped "violated," at least, but you're learning. I am going
to bring suit against the store owner. It is First Amendment based,
because I am going to claim the right to use the sidewalk. The store
owner obviously disagrees. I am making one claim; he is making
another. The judge, (the government) has to choose one argument or the
other, or something in between."
"No, I didn't use the word "against". See how you have to keep
inserting words into the argument just to make your argument "valid"?"
"According to you, the judge will rule that I DO NOT have the right to
free speech on a public sidewalk, if the store owner chooses to stop
me. now, read the two quotes YOU PRESENTED again, and tell us whya
judge would not be violating his oath by essentially authorizing the
store owner to do what he did again."
"I never said I did. I said that, if someone prevents me from
exercising my rights, I can take him to court and demand the
government protect them. Which they have to do."
"you're right. But you and Jeffrey are the only ones claiming the
right
doesn't exist, because one of the parties in the suit is not the
government. That's absurd. One of the parties IS the government. You
see, there are THREE parties in every lawsuit. The plaintiff, the
defendant and THE JUDGE. THE JUDGE is THE GOVERNMENT. Are you getting
this yet?"
"No I wouldn't. I am entitled to use the public sidewalk. I have the
right to use it. I have the right to free speech on it. There is no
question of any of that, no matter how much you sputter. If YOU lead
me away and keep me from exercising my rights, I get to go to court
and force the government to assert my rights. The judge will then
issue a restraining order and if you violate that restraining order,
you've broken the law. But the judge IS under obligation to NOT
ABRIDGE my free speech rights."
"I never said I did. I said I would take him to court based on the
First Amendment. I mean, Jesus, if you have a right, but you can't get
the government to protect it, WTF good is it?"
"There's that straw man again. Please show me where I EVER said the
judge would have to rule AGAINST anyone."
"Note that at no time have I used the words "against",
"violate" or any of the other bales of straw you keep attempting to
insert into this."
"BUT, if I'm on a public sidewalk legally, and you take my shit away
and drive me off the sidewalk, I do have a claim. And I have a claim
because I'm on a PUBLIC sidewalk. And when I sue, my First Amendment
claim won't be against YOU; it'll be against the state, to force them
to protect my First Amendment rights. It's a PUBLIC sidewalk. YOU have
no right to stop me from speaking in PUBLIC."
***
"if you're standing on the corner,legally handing out flyers, speaking out against
the store in front of which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes
your fliers and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have
the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
-- Milt Shook pretending to know about the law
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech
is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state."
-- MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
Steve Canyon
*****
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)
"You are guaranteed the right to free speech. That doesn't only prevent
the government from quashing free speech. It also creates an
obligation on their part to protect it from others who would quash it."
-- Milt shook disagreeing with the Supreme Court
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Sigh...
No Milt. What he is saying is that you have no free speech arguement
against the store owner because the store owner is not the government.
It really is that simple.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Well Milt, that ruling flies right in the face of your assertion.
Here is where the government had a chance to enforce the free speech
rights GLBG of Boston by ordering them into the parade. They
declined.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Jeffrey Scott Linder
It does? You assert that the government must enforce your 1st
amendment rights whenever possible. Here they had a chance to enforce
the 1st amendment rights of the GLBGoB and refused to do so.
Doesn't the GLBGoB have the right to march on a public street just
like everybody else in the parade?
>The judge will side with me, because I DO have a right to use a public
>sidewalk and he has an obligation to at least TRY to protect my
>rights...
Yet here they declined to let the GLBGoB the right to use the public
sidewalk....
You do have a right to be on that sidewalk Milt. Removing you is an
assault by the storeowner. If the cops removed you then you might,
under the right circumstances, have a 1st amendment claim against the
local cops(re: government).
>I'm not on the store owner's property, I do not
>work for the store owner. I don't even necessarily know the store
>owner. I am on PUBLIC property and acting legally.
Then its an assualt charge you should be looking at.
>Yet you and Canyon insist that I don't have the right to free speech
>somehow.
Funny, I've never said that. Can you post where I've said that?
>It is a puzzle...
>
>This is even less fun that arguing wih granite skull canyon. Your head
>is even harder. Jesus, this is lame...
Indeed you are...lame that is.
JSL
Milt
> "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote in message
> news:8c046319.04051...@posting.google.com...
> > In the scenario I presented, I was acting on my own, on a PUBLIC
> > sidewalk. I am going to court to assert my right to hand out fliers on
> > a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, where such a thing is legal.
>
> So long as you are not harassing people, and that you are not obstructing or
> diverting people from entering a private business.
> And it is legal to remove you from in front of a business, and there is very
> little you can do about it.
If I am not braking the law, and I'm on a public sidewalk, how is it
legal for someone to drive me off because he doesn't like the content
of my fliers?
> And the owner of the store can and proably would confiscate your fliers and
> destroy them. And again there is nothing you can do about it, unless you can
> beat him/her in a fight.
That's absurd.
What alternate version of America do you live in. Sounds more like
"Amerika"...
>
> > The judge will side with me, because I DO have a right to use a public
> > sidewalk and he has an obligation to at least TRY to protect my
> > rights...
>
> The Judge would not side with you, as your complaint is with a private
> citizen, hence the Judge would rule your case is without merit on 1st
> Amendment grounds, and he would tell you to go to civil court.
OMG! He'd tell me to go WHERE?? Where the hell is the judge?
Wait; they don't have judges in "Civil Court" in Amerika?
>
> > Oh, really? Who does the judge work for? Please explain how his saying
> > that I have NO RIGHT to be on that sidewalk is NOT an abridgement of
> > my free speech rights.
>
> You do not have the right to obstruct a person's business.
I never said I was. In fact, I said the opposite.
> And since your complaint is with a private citizen, you would not have a 1st
> Amendment claim.
>
(YAWN) So any private citizen can stop me from exercising my First
Amendment rights at will in "Amerika," Dana? Glad I don't live
there...
>
> I'm not on the store owner's property, I do not
> > work for the store owner. I don't even necessarily know the store
> > owner. I am on PUBLIC property and acting legally.
>
> And the store owner is acting legally by destroying your fliers.
He is? It's not theft? How can a store owner legally confiscate my
Kerry 2004 fliers? Can he take my clothes, too, if he doesn't like
them? How about if I'm sitting on a public bench working on my laptop?
Can he take that, too, because it has a Kerry bumpersticker showing?
> And the store owner can have you removed from in front of his store, and
> there would be no 1st Amendment violation.
On what grounds could a store owner have me removed, if I'm not
disrupting his business? And note that, in the scenario I presented, I
specifically said I wasn't disrupting his business.
> > Yet you and Canyon insist that I don't have the right to free speech
> > somehow.
>
> Just as someone has the freedom of expression to destroy your fliers and
> remove you from in front of his store.
I see. And where is the right to stop other people from exercising
their rights delineated in the law, Dana? Or are you citing from the
"Amerikan" Constitution?
> Your 1st Amendment rights are not being violated as no government agent is
> involved. It is between you as a private citizen, and the shop owner as a
> private citizen.
On a PUBLIC SIDEWALK! PUBLIC SIDEWALK!
I swear; if you combined the brain cells of the people opposing me in
this thread, you'd have a difficult time debating my cat.
Steve Canyon
>"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message news:<bb35faa3b11bda12...@news.meganetnews.com>...
>> "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote in message
>> news:8c046319.04051...@posting.google.com...
>> > In the scenario I presented, I was acting on my own, on a PUBLIC
>> > sidewalk. I am going to court to assert my right to hand out fliers on
>> > a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, where such a thing is legal.
>>
>> So long as you are not harassing people, and that you are not obstructing or
>> diverting people from entering a private business.
>> And it is legal to remove you from in front of a business, and there is very
>> little you can do about it.
>
>If I am not braking the law, and I'm on a public sidewalk, how is it
>legal for someone to drive me off because he doesn't like the content
>of my fliers?
It's probably not legal.. It's just not violating anything in the
Constitution, you moron...
None of that violated the First Amendment, Milt.. Focus boy..
>> And the store owner can have you removed from in front of his store, and
>> there would be no 1st Amendment violation.
>
>On what grounds could a store owner have me removed, if I'm not
>disrupting his business? And note that, in the scenario I presented, I
>specifically said I wasn't disrupting his business.
>
>> > Yet you and Canyon insist that I don't have the right to free speech
>> > somehow.
>>
>> Just as someone has the freedom of expression to destroy your fliers and
>> remove you from in front of his store.
>
>I see. And where is the right to stop other people from exercising
>their rights delineated in the law, Dana? Or are you citing from the
>"Amerikan" Constitution?
>
>> Your 1st Amendment rights are not being violated as no government agent is
>> involved. It is between you as a private citizen, and the shop owner as a
>> private citizen.
>
>On a PUBLIC SIDEWALK! PUBLIC SIDEWALK!
<LOL> I'm beginning to feel real sorry for old Milt. Maybe I ought
to leave him alone and let him recover....
>I swear; if you combined the brain cells of the people opposing me in
>this thread, you'd have a difficult time debating my cat.
*****
It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free
speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state.
Milt
Yes they do. They have the right to get a permit and march, just like
everyone else.
The PRIVATE group with the permit doesn't, however, have to accept
anyone into their permitted, organized march that they choose not to.
Imagine you were organizing an anti-choice march. You go and get the
permit, and a pro-choice group demands to be included in your march.
Would THAT be okay with you?
No one's free speech rights are being violated because they are not
being allowed to march at that moment. The only way that would happen
is if the town issued a permit to one group, but not another...
> >The judge will side with me, because I DO have a right to use a public
> >sidewalk and he has an obligation to at least TRY to protect my
> >rights...
>
> Yet here they declined to let the GLBGoB the right to use the public
> sidewalk...
No, they didn't. The GLBGoB can still use the sidewalk. They're simply
not entitled to use the other group's parade permit. They are free to
apply for a permit to use the street later that day or the next for
their own purposes.
If there was an ordinance that forbade me from handing out fliers on
Thursdays so that the city could clean the sidewalks, I couldn't do it
on Thursdays. That doesn't mean my rights have been violated, because
I can still hand them out Tuesday or Friday...
And why would that be?
> If the cops removed you then you might,
> under the right circumstances, have a 1st amendment claim against the
> local cops(re: government).
Sigh...
Okay So I have no First Amendment rights on a PUBLIC sidewalk, unless
a cop tries to stop me. Anyone else is fair game.
You must live in the same Amerika as Dana. Glad I don't live there...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
So your assertion that the government must support their 1st amendment
rights whenever possible is not true?
Is that what you are saying Milt? Because if it were true then whey
did the SC pass up on this opportunity?
>
>Imagine you were organizing an anti-choice march. You go and get the
>permit, and a pro-choice group demands to be included in your march.
>Would THAT be okay with you?
According to you they should be able to sue in court and the judge is
obligated, based on some nebulous legal precedent you are unable to
produce, to order them into the march.
>No one's free speech rights are being violated because they are not
>being allowed to march at that moment. The only way that would happen
>is if the town issued a permit to one group, but not another...
I think you're starting to get it....NO ONE'S FREE SPEECH RIGHTS WERE
VIOLATED UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT.
>> >The judge will side with me, because I DO have a right to use a public
>> >sidewalk and he has an obligation to at least TRY to protect my
>> >rights...
>>
>> Yet here they declined to let the GLBGoB the right to use the public
>> sidewalk...
>
>No, they didn't. The GLBGoB can still use the sidewalk. They're simply
>not entitled to use the other group's parade permit. They are free to
>apply for a permit to use the street later that day or the next for
>their own purposes.
So that does in fact, render your assertion incorrect.
Do you know what "assualt" is Milt? Good lord...
>> If the cops removed you then you might,
>> under the right circumstances, have a 1st amendment claim against the
>> local cops(re: government).
>
>Sigh...
>
>Okay So I have no First Amendment rights on a PUBLIC sidewalk, unless
>a cop tries to stop me. Anyone else is fair game.
No Milt. Can you understand this simple statement?
You have NO first amendment claim against the store owner.
>You must live in the same Amerika as Dana. Glad I don't live there...
>>
>> >I'm not on the store owner's property, I do not
>> >work for the store owner. I don't even necessarily know the store
>> >owner. I am on PUBLIC property and acting legally.
>>
>> Then its an assualt charge you should be looking at.
>>
>> >Yet you and Canyon insist that I don't have the right to free speech
>> >somehow.
>>
>> Funny, I've never said that. Can you post where I've said that?
What? Where is the evidence to back up your claim Milt?
JSL
Dana
> "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
news:<bb35faa3b11bda12...@news.meganetnews.com>...
> > "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote in message
> > news:8c046319.04051...@posting.google.com...
> > > In the scenario I presented, I was acting on my own, on a PUBLIC
> > > sidewalk. I am going to court to assert my right to hand out fliers on
> > > a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, where such a thing is legal.
> >
> > So long as you are not harassing people, and that you are not
obstructing or
> > diverting people from entering a private business.
> > And it is legal to remove you from in front of a business, and there is
very
> > little you can do about it.
>
> If I am not braking the law, and I'm on a public sidewalk, how is it
> legal for someone to drive me off because he doesn't like the content
> of my fliers?
Because you are obstructing people from entering his business.
That in itself is a crime you would be engaging in. And the store owner has
the legal right to have you removed.
>
> > And the owner of the store can and proably would confiscate your fliers
and
> > destroy them. And again there is nothing you can do about it, unless you
can
> > beat him/her in a fight.
>
> That's absurd.
Not at all.
> >
> > > The judge will side with me, because I DO have a right to use a public
> > > sidewalk and he has an obligation to at least TRY to protect my
> > > rights...
> >
> > The Judge would not side with you, as your complaint is with a private
> > citizen, hence the Judge would rule your case is without merit on 1st
> > Amendment grounds, and he would tell you to go to civil court.
>
> OMG! He'd tell me to go WHERE?? Where the hell is the judge?
He would tell you to go to civil court, your claim would be with another
private citizen, not a government entity, hence you would not have a 1st
Amendment claim.
> >
> > > Oh, really? Who does the judge work for? Please explain how his saying
> > > that I have NO RIGHT to be on that sidewalk is NOT an abridgement of
> > > my free speech rights.
> >
> > You do not have the right to obstruct a person's business.
>
> > And since your complaint is with a private citizen, you would not have a
1st
> > Amendment claim.
> >
>
> (YAWN) So any private citizen can stop me from exercising my First
> Amendment rights at will in "Amerika," Dana? Glad I don't live
> there...
Pretty much. If I saw you doing that on a street in front of a business, I
would grab all your flyers and destroy them. And not much you can do about
it, besides take me to Civil Court to try to get your money back for the
cost of printing those flyers.
>
> >
> > I'm not on the store owner's property, I do not
> > > work for the store owner. I don't even necessarily know the store
> > > owner. I am on PUBLIC property and acting legally.
> >
> > And the store owner is acting legally by destroying your fliers.
>
>
> > And the store owner can have you removed from in front of his store, and
> > there would be no 1st Amendment violation.
>
> On what grounds could a store owner have me removed, if I'm not
> disrupting his business? And note that, in the scenario I presented, I
> specifically said I wasn't disrupting his business.
But you would be. As people would be avoiding the area where you are at,
hence you would be driving potential customers away from the store.
>
> > > Yet you and Canyon insist that I don't have the right to free speech
> > > somehow.
> >
> > Just as someone has the freedom of expression to destroy your fliers and
> > remove you from in front of his store.
>
>
Milt
I'm afraid it is...
> > >
> > > > The judge will side with me, because I DO have a right to use a public
> > > > sidewalk and he has an obligation to at least TRY to protect my
> > > > rights...
> > >
> > > The Judge would not side with you, as your complaint is with a private
> > > citizen, hence the Judge would rule your case is without merit on 1st
> > > Amendment grounds, and he would tell you to go to civil court.
> >
> > OMG! He'd tell me to go WHERE?? Where the hell is the judge?
>
> He would tell you to go to civil court, your claim would be with another
> private citizen, not a government entity, hence you would not have a 1st
> Amendment claim.
You're clueless, Butt boy.
> > >
> > > > Oh, really? Who does the judge work for? Please explain how his saying
> > > > that I have NO RIGHT to be on that sidewalk is NOT an abridgement of
> > > > my free speech rights.
> > >
> > > You do not have the right to obstruct a person's business.
>
> > > And since your complaint is with a private citizen, you would not have a
> 1st
> > > Amendment claim.
> > >
> >
> > (YAWN) So any private citizen can stop me from exercising my First
> > Amendment rights at will in "Amerika," Dana? Glad I don't live
> > there...
>
> Pretty much. If I saw you doing that on a street in front of a business, I
> would grab all your flyers and destroy them. And not much you can do about
> it, besides take me to Civil Court to try to get your money back for the
> cost of printing those flyers.
Or call a cop and have your sorry ass thrown in jail for theft. Then,
I would go into "civil court" and get a restraining order against your
sorry ass for accosting me on a public sidewalk.
You could only do that if I was standing on your property. This is the
part that you, Jeffrey and Canyon don't get. The only place I don't
have free speech is on private property. On public property, I do.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not on the store owner's property, I do not
> > > > work for the store owner. I don't even necessarily know the store
> > > > owner. I am on PUBLIC property and acting legally.
> > >
> > > And the store owner is acting legally by destroying your fliers.
> >
> >
> > > And the store owner can have you removed from in front of his store, and
> > > there would be no 1st Amendment violation.
> >
> > On what grounds could a store owner have me removed, if I'm not
> > disrupting his business? And note that, in the scenario I presented, I
> > specifically said I wasn't disrupting his business.
>
> But you would be. As people would be avoiding the area where you are at,
> hence you would be driving potential customers away from the store.
1. That's an assumption not based on any fact. It's just as possible
that more people will go into his store, because they don't like me...
2. So what? Maybe that's my purpose. It's a public sidewalk; as long
as I'm not blocking access to his store, and people are free to go in,
who cares?
Milt
> On 20 May 2004 07:41:39 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> >"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message news:<bb35faa3b11bda12...@news.meganetnews.com>...
> >> "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote in message
> >> news:8c046319.04051...@posting.google.com...
> >> > In the scenario I presented, I was acting on my own, on a PUBLIC
> >> > sidewalk. I am going to court to assert my right to hand out fliers on
> >> > a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, where such a thing is legal.
> >>
> >> So long as you are not harassing people, and that you are not obstructing or
> >> diverting people from entering a private business.
> >> And it is legal to remove you from in front of a business, and there is very
> >> little you can do about it.
> >
> >If I am not braking the law, and I'm on a public sidewalk, how is it
> >legal for someone to drive me off because he doesn't like the content
> >of my fliers?
>
> It's probably not legal.. It's just not violating anything in the
> Constitution, you moron...
Not that i ever said it did. But straw arguments are all you have...
I never said it did.
>
> >> And the store owner can have you removed from in front of his store, and
> >> there would be no 1st Amendment violation.
> >
> >On what grounds could a store owner have me removed, if I'm not
> >disrupting his business? And note that, in the scenario I presented, I
> >specifically said I wasn't disrupting his business.
> >
> >> > Yet you and Canyon insist that I don't have the right to free speech
> >> > somehow.
> >>
> >> Just as someone has the freedom of expression to destroy your fliers and
> >> remove you from in front of his store.
> >
> >I see. And where is the right to stop other people from exercising
> >their rights delineated in the law, Dana? Or are you citing from the
> >"Amerikan" Constitution?
> >
> >> Your 1st Amendment rights are not being violated as no government agent is
> >> involved. It is between you as a private citizen, and the shop owner as a
> >> private citizen.
> >
> >On a PUBLIC SIDEWALK! PUBLIC SIDEWALK!
>
> <LOL> I'm beginning to feel real sorry for old Milt. Maybe I ought
> to leave him alone and let him recover....
Recover from the beating you morons are taking?
Do you have any idea how many people are laughing at you about now?
I've gotten about two dozen emails from people already. And it's rare
that anyone does that in the first place...
What a tool...
Dana
Wrong again. I would have been innocent of any theft charges, and the cops
would have told you to take it to Civil Court.
You cannot expect to slander or insult a store owner and get away with it.
> I would go into "civil court" and get a restraining order against your
> sorry ass for accosting me on a public sidewalk.
And you would have a broken nose for your trouble.
>
> You could only do that if I was standing on your property.
No, I can do that if you were on the sidewalk blocking access to my store
and harassing my customers.
This is the
> part that you, Jeffrey and Canyon don't get. The only place I don't
> have free speech is on private property. On public property, I do.
And you also can expect to be held responsible for your actions by other
private citizens, like having your flyers destroyed, and being removed from
the area.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not on the store owner's property, I do not
> > > > > work for the store owner. I don't even necessarily know the store
> > > > > owner. I am on PUBLIC property and acting legally.
> > > >
> > > > And the store owner is acting legally by destroying your fliers.
> > >
> > >
> > > > And the store owner can have you removed from in front of his store,
and
> > > > there would be no 1st Amendment violation.
> > >
> > > On what grounds could a store owner have me removed, if I'm not
> > > disrupting his business? And note that, in the scenario I presented, I
> > > specifically said I wasn't disrupting his business.
> >
> > But you would be. As people would be avoiding the area where you are at,
> > hence you would be driving potential customers away from the store.
Dana
Now you are trying to change your stance.
Steve Canyon
>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<j5lpa0pjsp31tqj6s...@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 May 2004 07:41:39 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>>
>> >"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message news:<bb35faa3b11bda12...@news.meganetnews.com>...
>> >> "Milt" <mi...@law.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:8c046319.04051...@posting.google.com...
>> >> > In the scenario I presented, I was acting on my own, on a PUBLIC
>> >> > sidewalk. I am going to court to assert my right to hand out fliers on
>> >> > a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, where such a thing is legal.
>> >>
>> >> So long as you are not harassing people, and that you are not obstructing or
>> >> diverting people from entering a private business.
>> >> And it is legal to remove you from in front of a business, and there is very
>> >> little you can do about it.
>> >
>> >If I am not braking the law, and I'm on a public sidewalk, how is it
>> >legal for someone to drive me off because he doesn't like the content
>> >of my fliers?
>>
>> It's probably not legal.. It's just not violating anything in the
>> Constitution, you moron...
>
>Not that i ever said it did. But straw arguments are all you have...
Hmmmm, I thought you were suing on the basis of the First Amendment.
Wouldn't somebody have to be in violation of it for you to do that.
Sure you have, Milt, and none of them had the balls to actually
support you on usenet. <LOL> You don't lie and bluster very well,
you moron.
Milt
I NEVER said that.
Milt
I can insult him all I want, you moronic fuckwit. (See how easy that
is?) And slander is tough to prove. I can be critical of anyone I
wish, and as long as I'm not libeling or slandering him, I am free to
stand on the public sidewalk and pass out what I wish.
Glad I don't live in Dana's "Amerika"...
>
> > I would go into "civil court" and get a restraining order against your
> > sorry ass for accosting me on a public sidewalk.
>
> And you would have a broken nose for your trouble.
I would also have a law that puts the asshole in jail if he tries to
stop me again.
> >
> > You could only do that if I was standing on your property.
>
> No, I can do that if you were on the sidewalk blocking access to my store
> and harassing my customers.
>
I specifically said I WAS NOT doing that.
>
> > This is the
> > part that you, Jeffrey and Canyon don't get. The only place I don't
> > have free speech is on private property. On public property, I do.
>
> And you also can expect to be held responsible for your actions by other
> private citizens, like having your flyers destroyed, and being removed from
> the area.
Then those private citizens can expect to be held responsible for
accosting me and destroying my property. And then, I'm going to court
to keep you from doing it again.
Basically, in Dana's "Amerika," a store owner can screw you, and you
are not allowed to say anything about it.
I like this place better...
Dana
news:8c046319.04052...@posting.google.com...
> > > > None of that violated the First Amendment, Milt.. Focus boy..
> > >
> > > I never said it did.
> >
> > Now you are trying to change your stance.
>
> I NEVER said that.
You sure did. You claimed you were going to court because your 1st Amendment
protection was violated. We just proved to you, your 1st Amedment protection
was not violated.
Dana
> > Wrong again. I would have been innocent of any theft charges, and the
cops
> > would have told you to take it to Civil Court.
> > You cannot expect to slander or insult a store owner and get away with
it.
>
> I can insult him all I want, you moronic fuckwit.
And when he holds you accountable by beating the heck out of you, you would
have no claim of 1st Amendment violations.
(See how easy that
> is?) And slander is tough to prove. I can be critical of anyone I
> wish, and as long as I'm not libeling or slandering him, I am free to
> stand on the public sidewalk and pass out what I wish.
And someone else is free to grab your fliers and destroy them, and have you
removed from in front of his/her business.
> > > I would go into "civil court" and get a restraining order against your
> > > sorry ass for accosting me on a public sidewalk.
> >
> > And you would have a broken nose for your trouble.
>
> I would also have a law that puts the asshole in jail if he tries to
> stop me again.
It does not work that way.
> > No, I can do that if you were on the sidewalk blocking access to my
store
> > and harassing my customers.
> >
> I specifically said I WAS NOT doing that.
But you are by the description you gave.
Milt
WHENEVER POSSIBLE, Jeffrey. I have never said that it was absolute.
Note that I very clearly stated "whenever possible" throughout these
threads.
When the freedom of speech of two individuals collides -- and it does
-- you have to opt for justice. It wouldn't be just to force private
individuals to accept gay pride marchers in a private parade, even on
public property. The gay group is fully cpable of applying for their
own permit at a different time. Therefore, not abridgement of First
Amendment rights has occurred.
>
> Is that what you are saying Milt? Because if it were true then whey
> did the SC pass up on this opportunity?
>
Dumbass.
Why don't you tell us how that relates to ME using a PUBLIC SIDEWALK
to hand out fliers legally?
> >
> >Imagine you were organizing an anti-choice march. You go and get the
> >permit, and a pro-choice group demands to be included in your march.
> >Would THAT be okay with you?
>
> According to you they should be able to sue in court and the judge is
> obligated, based on some nebulous legal precedent you are unable to
> produce, to order them into the march.
I NEVER said that. The problem is, you idiot, you can't even see that
the situations are in no way similar.
>
> >No one's free speech rights are being violated because they are not
> >being allowed to march at that moment. The only way that would happen
> >is if the town issued a permit to one group, but not another...
>
> I think you're starting to get it....NO ONE'S FREE SPEECH RIGHTS WERE
> VIOLATED UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT.
Right, you moron! And if I have a goddamned RIGHT to stand on the
PUBLIC street corner and hand out fliers -- and I DO -- and the
government has an opportunity to protect that and doesn't, then they
have VIOLATED MY RIGHTS!
If someone else applies for a legal permit to use the MIDDLE OF THE
GODDAMN ROAD, I don't have a right to join them. I can, however, still
pass out fliers on the PUBLIC sidewalk.
You have a hell of a lot of nerve asking if I get this, when it's
obvious you don't know WTF you're talking about.
>
> >> >The judge will side with me, because I DO have a right to use a public
> >> >sidewalk and he has an obligation to at least TRY to protect my
> >> >rights...
> >>
> >> Yet here they declined to let the GLBGoB the right to use the public
> >> sidewalk...
> >
> >No, they didn't. The GLBGoB can still use the sidewalk. They're simply
> >not entitled to use the other group's parade permit. They are free to
> >apply for a permit to use the street later that day or the next for
> >their own purposes.
>
> So that does in fact, render your assertion incorrect.
I'm not using the street, moron. I'm using the public sidewalk. The
gay gruop can pass out fliers on the sidewalk during the parade. The
permit is so that the parade can use a thoroughfare. I don't need a
permit to pass out fliers on the public sidewalk. (Depending on city
ordinances and time of day...)
No, you tool. WHY WOULD THAT BE?? I didn't ask you what a goddamned
assault was. Jesus, are you dense...
Why is his removal of you considered an assault?
It wouldn't be an assault if you were on his private property. Why
would it be an assuault if it occurs on public property? What's that
based on? it's based on your right to be there and pass out fliers.
>
>
> >> If the cops removed you then you might,
> >> under the right circumstances, have a 1st amendment claim against the
> >> local cops(re: government).
> >
> >Sigh...
> >
> >Okay So I have no First Amendment rights on a PUBLIC sidewalk, unless
> >a cop tries to stop me. Anyone else is fair game.
>
> No Milt. Can you understand this simple statement?
>
> You have NO first amendment claim against the store owner.
Jesus Christ, Jeffrey, you have to be the dumbest person on Usenet.
Between you, Canyon and Dana, the brainpower wouldn't make one IQ
point.
I have NEVER said I had a First Amendment claim against the store
owner. I said I would take him to court and assert a First Amendment
case. I would demand that the judge assert my First Amendment right to
be on the sidewalk. Then, the judge would assert that right for the
future, and the next time the guy tries the same bullshit, he'd be
breaking that law.
> >You must live in the same Amerika as Dana. Glad I don't live there...
> >>
> >> >I'm not on the store owner's property, I do not
> >> >work for the store owner. I don't even necessarily know the store
> >> >owner. I am on PUBLIC property and acting legally.
> >>
> >> Then its an assualt charge you should be looking at.
> >>
> >> >Yet you and Canyon insist that I don't have the right to free speech
> >> >somehow.
> >>
> >> Funny, I've never said that. Can you post where I've said that?
>
> What? Where is the evidence to back up your claim Milt?
The evidence is in the First Amendment.
Get a clue.
I have the right to be on the sidewalk, passing out fliers.
Some guy runs me off the sidewalk.
I go to court and demand my right to be on the sidewalk.
If the judge doesn't assert my rights with the ruling, he's violating
his constitutional mandate. Why? Because he's the government, you
tool!
You should also read the case you keep citing. It says the same thing
in there...
Steve Canyon
That's right, Milt is going to take the guy to court on a First
Amendment based lawsuit for *NOT* violating the First Amendment. The
judge is going to get a real kick out of that.
Steve Canyon
>
>Basically, in Dana's "Amerika," a store owner can screw you, and you
>are not allowed to say anything about it.
Milt, Milt, if he screws you, you will be allowed to say something
about it, however screwing you isn't covered under the First Amendment
either, so you'll have to find another law to base it on...
Steve Canyon
>Right, you moron! And if I have a goddamned RIGHT to stand on the
>PUBLIC street corner and hand out fliers -- and I DO -- and the
>government has an opportunity to protect that and doesn't, then they
>have VIOLATED MY RIGHTS!
No they haven't Milt, at least not according to the First Amendment
which says that you are only protected against government
interference, and cussing and swearing and throwing a tantrum is not
going to change that fact.
>If someone else applies for a legal permit to use the MIDDLE OF THE
>GODDAMN ROAD, I don't have a right to join them. I can, however, still
>pass out fliers on the PUBLIC sidewalk.
Of course you can. Whoever said otherwise,
>You have a hell of a lot of nerve asking if I get this, when it's
>obvious you don't know WTF you're talking about.
It's because you obviously fail to understand the limits of your First
Amendment rights...
>
>I have NEVER said I had a First Amendment claim against the store
>owner. I said I would take him to court and assert a First Amendment
>case.
Well, what the hell are you going to take the gay to court for then?
>
>I have the right to be on the sidewalk, passing out fliers.
>Some guy runs me off the sidewalk.
>I go to court and demand my right to be on the sidewalk.
>If the judge doesn't assert my rights with the ruling, he's violating
>his constitutional mandate. Why? Because he's the government, you
>tool!
He has no obligation nor Constitutional mandate to do anything
according to the First Amendment.
If you can't bring sue the private party on First Amendment grounds,
you can't demand that the judge do anything to him on First Amendment
grounds either. The notion that a judge has a Constitutional mandate
to stop somebody from doing something that does not violate anything
in the Constitution is totally bizarre, and the fact that you cannot
find an example of anything like that ever happening is no accident.
>You should also read the case you keep citing. It says the same thing
>in there...
Then, cut out the part that says that and paste it right here..
Dana
> On 22 May 2004 05:51:23 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> >
> >Basically, in Dana's "Amerika," a store owner can screw you, and you
> >are not allowed to say anything about it.
>
> Milt, Milt, if he screws you, you will be allowed to say something
> about it, however screwing you isn't covered under the First Amendment
> either, so you'll have to find another law to base it on...
> *****
I wonder why milt cannot grasp this very basic concept.
Is milt such a statist that he actually thinks the government is going to
protect him from every possible transgression that may occur. Heck if that
was the case, we would have no crime at all in society. And of course our
crime rate does show that the government is not protecting everyone from
every possible transgression that may occur. And to add insult to injury,
milt is the type of person who wants to disarm the population, so the people
would not even be able to defend themselves at all.
Milt
Clueless. You're absolutely incapable of cogent thought on the law.
Milt
> On 22 May 2004 05:51:23 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
>
>>Basically, in Dana's "Amerika," a store owner can screw you, and you
>>are not allowed to say anything about it.
>
>
> Milt, Milt, if he screws you, you will be allowed to say something
> about it, however screwing you isn't covered under the First Amendment
> either, so you'll have to find another law to base it on...
So, I do NOT have a First Amendment right to hand out fliers on a public
sidewalk?
Thanks for playing...
Milt
> On 22 May 2004 07:31:30 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
>
>>Right, you moron! And if I have a goddamned RIGHT to stand on the
>>PUBLIC street corner and hand out fliers -- and I DO -- and the
>>government has an opportunity to protect that and doesn't, then they
>>have VIOLATED MY RIGHTS!
>
>
> No they haven't Milt, at least not according to the First Amendment
> which says that you are only protected against government
> interference, and cussing and swearing and throwing a tantrum is not
> going to change that fact.
You didn't even read the above, did you? You couldn't have, because your
response doesn't address what I said.
>
>
>>If someone else applies for a legal permit to use the MIDDLE OF THE
>>GODDAMN ROAD, I don't have a right to join them. I can, however, still
>>pass out fliers on the PUBLIC sidewalk.
>
>
> Of course you can. Whoever said otherwise,
YOU, ya stupid prick! Jesus! If the judge is allowed to not protect your
rights, then you've lost them...
Moron is too stupid to know when he's lost and drooling...
Milt
> "Steve Canyon" <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
> news:m3lua0tugpifsc91u...@4ax.com...
>
>>On 22 May 2004 05:51:23 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Basically, in Dana's "Amerika," a store owner can screw you, and you
>>>are not allowed to say anything about it.
>>
>>Milt, Milt, if he screws you, you will be allowed to say something
>>about it, however screwing you isn't covered under the First Amendment
>>either, so you'll have to find another law to base it on...
>>*****
>
>
> I wonder why milt cannot grasp this very basic concept.
Because it's utter bullshit!
> Is milt such a statist that he actually thinks the government is going to
> protect him from every possible transgression that may occur.
ANOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN!
Have any of you noticed that every one of these fuckwits has had to
bring in another straw man just to argue?
I didn't say every possible anything. I said "whenever possible." But if
I go to court and demand my rights, they're pretty much forced to honor
the First Amendment. Yet, according to these morons, you have no rights...
> Heck if that
> was the case, we would have no crime at all in society. And of course our
> crime rate does show that the government is not protecting everyone from
> every possible transgression that may occur. And to add insult to injury,
> milt is the type of person who wants to disarm the population, so the people
> would not even be able to defend themselves at all.
You must drool when you type...
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Take a time out, Milt, nobody here has said that you don't have a
right to pass out your fliers, all you've heard from me is that you
can't use the First Amendment from doing something that according to
the First amendment is perfectly legal. You ought to use a law that
actually addresses what private citizen does instead of what the
government does, and your cursing and throwing a tantrum isn't going
to change the facts.
>Moron is too stupid to know when he's lost and drooling...
*****
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Irony anyone? <LOL> Thinks he can use a law that prohibits
government action to stop what a private party is doing.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Dana wrote:
>> "Steve Canyon" <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
>> news:m3lua0tugpifsc91u...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On 22 May 2004 05:51:23 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Basically, in Dana's "Amerika," a store owner can screw you, and you
>>>>are not allowed to say anything about it.
>>>
>>>Milt, Milt, if he screws you, you will be allowed to say something
>>>about it, however screwing you isn't covered under the First Amendment
>>>either, so you'll have to find another law to base it on...
>>>*****
>>
>>
>> I wonder why milt cannot grasp this very basic concept.
>
>Because it's utter bullshit!
>
>> Is milt such a statist that he actually thinks the government is going to
>> protect him from every possible transgression that may occur.
>
>ANOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN!
Settle down, Milt, the usenet isn't your momma so throwing a tantrum
isn't going to accomplish anything for you.
>Have any of you noticed that every one of these fuckwits has had to
>bring in another straw man just to argue?
Speaking of strawmen arguments, where did this ridiculous notion of
yours came from, the one that you could invoke the First Amendment to
stop a private party from doing something when the first Amendment
only speaks to something the government may not do?
>I didn't say every possible anything. I said "whenever possible." But if
>I go to court and demand my rights, they're pretty much forced to honor
>the First Amendment. Yet, according to these morons, you have no rights...
Poor Milt, he can't find anything or anybody to support his "whenever
possible" nonsense and he can't find anything or anybody to support
his contention that his First Amendment rights can be violated or even
threatened by something a private party does, so he just rants and
raves and throws a tantrum.
*****
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Of course you do, Milt. Whoever said otherwise? Certainly not me.
Maybe you should settle down a bit now and try not to hurt yourself.
>Thanks for playing...
Milt
Which is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing a RWer on Usenet has
ever claimed. And that is a tough claim to make, since there are so many
contenders.
The fact that you contradict yourself about 3 times in the above should
serve as a clue.
I'm not hooeful anymore, though...
> You ought to use a law that
> actually addresses what private citizen does instead of what the
> government does, and your cursing and throwing a tantrum isn't going
> to change the facts.
Why? You still haven't explained this in a way that makes any sense.
My lawsuit isn't to get money or compensation from that private citizen.
It's to force the government to reaffirm my rights and offer a layer of
protection.
Jesus, how many ways do I have to say it? Stop bringing straw into this...
Milt
And again he's too fucking stupid to understand that the judge would be
violating that law if I take my demands to him...
Steve Canyon
wrote:
The First amendment offers no protection from anything a private party
can do to you, Milt. That's just the way it is, little feller.
Dana
news:vOmdnfo7qv-...@comcast.com...
Wrong, the judge would be laughing at you along with everyone else. The
judge would then have you charged with slander, since you are accusing him
of violating your rights, which he did not do.
>
>
Dana
A government agent cannot stop you unless you are being a public nuisance, a
private citizen can interfere with what you are doing, and you only recourse
with the private citizen is Civil Court.
Your first Amendment protection only covers you from state and federal acts,
it does not protect you from the acts of private citizens.
Dana
> Dana wrote:
> > "Steve Canyon" <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
> > news:m3lua0tugpifsc91u...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On 22 May 2004 05:51:23 -0700, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Basically, in Dana's "Amerika," a store owner can screw you, and you
> >>>are not allowed to say anything about it.
> >>
> >>Milt, Milt, if he screws you, you will be allowed to say something
> >>about it, however screwing you isn't covered under the First Amendment
> >>either, so you'll have to find another law to base it on...
> >>*****
> >
> >
> > I wonder why milt cannot grasp this very basic concept.
>
> Because it's utter bullshit!
No Milt it is not. The Constitution and the BOR acts on government, not
private citizens.
>
> > Is milt such a statist that he actually thinks the government is going
to
> > protect him from every possible transgression that may occur.
>
> ANOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN!
No, you keep saying the judge has to protect your right against the actions
of a private citizen.
> > Heck if that
> > was the case, we would have no crime at all in society. And of course
our
> > crime rate does show that the government is not protecting everyone from
> > every possible transgression that may occur. And to add insult to
injury,
> > milt is the type of person who wants to disarm the population, so the
people
> > would not even be able to defend themselves at all.
> >
Steve Canyon
wrote:
You know if that was really true a judge would have to issue a
restraining order to every rabbi, reverend, and priest to stop them
from respecting their establishments of religions, because the First
Amendment prohibited the judge from doing it.
gumdrop
Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com says...
[snip, nonsense]
> >Why? You still haven't explained this in a way that makes any sense.
> >
> >My lawsuit isn't to get money or compensation from that private citizen.
> >It's to force the government to reaffirm my rights and offer a layer of
> >protection.
>
> The First amendment offers no protection from anything a private party
> can do to you, Milt. That's just the way it is, little feller.
You believe all this stuff about how the First Amendment doesn't
give us the right to say what we want; pretty much wherever we
want? Then you don't know how "freedom of speech" works, or what
America stands for.
You have a lot of company: Pretty much the entire Southern
United States. The South is full of political perverts.
****
Chances are excellent, that you have *never* read any Court
Decision defining what Freedom of Speech actually is.
Let's see a list of the Court precedents you've read.
gd
Julian D.
It's embarrassing that this has to be explained to people.
JD
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Especially to somebody like Milt Shook who posts from law.com and
claims to have an education in political science.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>In article <96ova0pq9h0cl9pei...@4ax.com>,
>Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com says...
>
>[snip, nonsense]
>
>> >Why? You still haven't explained this in a way that makes any sense.
>> >
>> >My lawsuit isn't to get money or compensation from that private citizen.
>> >It's to force the government to reaffirm my rights and offer a layer of
>> >protection.
>>
>> The First amendment offers no protection from anything a private party
>> can do to you, Milt. That's just the way it is, little feller.
>
>You believe all this stuff about how the First Amendment doesn't
>give us the right to say what we want; pretty much wherever we
>want? Then you don't know how "freedom of speech" works, or what
>America stands for.
I believe that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech
against government abridgement. It does not, however offer any
protection against what a private party may do.
Read the following for details.
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
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee
of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
federal or state. Thus, while statutory or
common law may in some situations extend protection or provide
redress against a private corporation or person who seeks to abridge
the free expression of others, no such protection or redress is
provided by the Constitution itself." --U.S. Supreme Court
HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
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. The State could be
either the Federal government or (now) a State government. Many
mistakenly thank that any suppression of speech, including suppression
by private citizens, violates the First Amendment. Such a private
action might be objectionable for ethical or social reasons, but it
does not present a constitutional issue."
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