MSNBC, which ftr has much about it to dislike, said tonight that it was
not illegal to demonstrate outside a USSC member's home but I'm pretty
sure I heard weeks ago that it was and Merrick Garland in the excerpt
they played didn't use its legality as a reason to not arrest people.
Is it illegal?
If yes, any other homes it's illegal do demostrate in front of?
MSNBC, which ftr has much about it to dislike, said tonight that it was
not illegal to demonstrate outside a USSC member's home but I'm pretty
sure I heard weeks ago that it was and Merrick Garland in the excerpt
they played didn't use its legality as a reason to not arrest people.
Is it illegal?
If yes, any other homes it's illegal do demostrate in front of?
MSNBC, which ftr has much about it to dislike, said tonight that it was
not illegal to demonstrate outside a USSC member's home but I'm pretty
sure I heard weeks ago that it was and Merrick Garland in the excerpt
they played didn't use its legality as a reason to not arrest people.
Is it illegal?
If yes, any other homes it's illegal do demostrate in front of?
On 3/1/2023 10:58 PM, micky wrote:
MSNBC, which ftr has much about it to dislike, said tonight that it was
not illegal to demonstrate outside a USSC member's home but I'm pretty
sure I heard weeks ago that it was and Merrick Garland in the excerpt
they played didn't use its legality as a reason to not arrest people.
Is it illegal?
If yes, any other homes it's illegal do demostrate in front of?
There is a law against it. But that law may run afoul of the First
Amendment freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the >press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. If you stand up in a courtroom and
yell out "The judge is an idiot", you are likely to be arrested on the
spot and charged with contempt. In the same way, you can't walk on someone's private property and begin speaking and expect that you won't
be arrested and removed from the property as a trespasser.  Even if you are on public property and interrupt some kind of proceeding or public ceremony by preventing someone else from speaking, you could be arrested
for creating a public nuisance or whatever.  There are numerous other cases where free speech is not guaranteed, such as committing slander by saying things publicly about a person that are demonstrably untrue
On 3/2/2023 1:41 PM, Rick wrote:
Freedom of speech is not absolute. If you stand up in a courtroom and
yell out "The judge is an idiot", you are likely to be arrested on the
spot and charged with contempt. In the same way, you can't walk on
someone's private property and begin speaking and expect that you won't
be arrested and removed from the property as a trespasser. Even if you
are on public property and interrupt some kind of proceeding or public
ceremony by preventing someone else from speaking, you could be arrested
for creating a public nuisance or whatever. There are numerous other
cases where free speech is not guaranteed, such as committing slander by
saying things publicly about a person that are demonstrably untrue
All quite true. But marching on the street in front of a Supreme Court >judge's home is none of these. Nobody's rights are being violated.
All this is part of a general principle enumerated by Thomas Jefferson:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable >Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
This is just as true of Supreme Court justices (and other judges) as it
is of congresspersons, the President, and all branches of governments,
at all levels.
Now, if the demonstrators were, for example, using bullhorns at
unreasonable hours of the night, that would be interfering with the
justices' "quiet enjoyment" of their property, and a suitable subject
for legislation. Similarly if threats are uttered or (under certain >circumstances) even implied.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 2 Mar 2023 21:37:06 -0800 (PST), Barry
Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
On 3/2/2023 1:41 PM, Rick wrote:
Freedom of speech is not absolute. If you stand up in a courtroom and
yell out "The judge is an idiot", you are likely to be arrested on the
spot and charged with contempt. In the same way, you can't walk on
someone's private property and begin speaking and expect that you won't
be arrested and removed from the property as a trespasser. Even if you >>> are on public property and interrupt some kind of proceeding or public
ceremony by preventing someone else from speaking, you could be arrested >>> for creating a public nuisance or whatever. There are numerous other
cases where free speech is not guaranteed, such as committing slander by >>> saying things publicly about a person that are demonstrably untrue
All quite true. But marching on the street in front of a Supreme Court >>judge's home is none of these. Nobody's rights are being violated.
All this is part of a general principle enumerated by Thomas Jefferson:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable >>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of >>Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among >>Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
This is just as true of Supreme Court justices (and other judges) as it
is of congresspersons, the President, and all branches of governments,
at all levels.
Now, if the demonstrators were, for example, using bullhorns at >>unreasonable hours of the night, that would be interfering with the >>justices' "quiet enjoyment" of their property, and a suitable subject
for legislation. Similarly if threats are uttered or (under certain >>circumstances) even implied.
Well the first reply cited the statute, >https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507 , "Whoever, with the
intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration
of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness,
or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, "
The easiest part of this, easier than interfere, obstruct of impede, is
is intending to influence. It certainly seems to me they wanted to
influence the justices, not just putting a show for the press.
Washington Post legal experts seem pretty unanimous on the point
to me: The statutes et cetera limiting protesters' free speech
rights in front of the Justices' homes are constitutional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/protest-justice- home-illegal/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/protesters-have- no-free-speech-rights-on-supreme-courts-front-porch/2015/08/28/f79a e262-4d9e-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html
Washington Post legal experts seem pretty unanimous on the point to me: The statutes et cetera limiting
protesters' free speech rights in front of the Justices' homes are constitutional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/protest-justice-home-illegal/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/protesters-have-no-free-speech-rights-on-supreme-courts-front-porch/2015/08/28/f79ae262-4d9e-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html
I had not previously found any ruling on the
constitutionality of that statute. And I also agree with Harold Hodge
and the Rutherford Institute -- and with District Judge Howell's
opinion: that these statutes -- and the rulings upholding them -- turn
the First Amendment right of free speech into a mockery.
Anywhere that the public is allowed, the public should be allowed to
protest, subject only to viewpoint-neutral restrictions on things like unreasonable noise levels at night near residences and blocking traffic.
A law banning demonstrations only "with the intent of influencing a
judge" is very much NOT "viewpoint neutral". Apparently it would be okay
to demonstrate against, say, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the home
of a judge but not to demonstrate against abortion or against the anti-abortion laws enacted by some states.
Freedom of speech is not absolute.
Similarly if threats are uttered or (under certain circumstances) even implied.
Well the first reply cited the statute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507 , "Whoever, with the
intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration
of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness,
or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, "
On March 3, micky wrote:
Freedom of speech is not absolute.
Similarly if threats are uttered or (under certain circumstances) even implied.
Well the first reply cited the statute,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507 , "Whoever, with the
intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration
of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness,
or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, "
Why isn't Chuck Schumer behind bars?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu-7L5W6Rew
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 455 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 97:16:47 |
| Calls: | 9,316 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,530 |
| Messages: | 6,079,027 |
| Posted today: | 1 |