• legal to demonstrate outside a USSC member's home

    From micky@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 1 22:58:23 2023
    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?

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to micky on Wed Mar 1 23:06:39 2023
    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?



    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507


    ACLU agrees

    ""Targeted, stationary protest, solely and directly in front of a
    justice's home, with the intention of influencing that justice’s opinion
    on a vote, could constitute a violation of Section 1507," said Vera
    Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology
    Project, in an interview with PolitiFact.

    Now that doesn't mean the law is constitutional or not. It is just
    written that way.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to micky on Thu Mar 2 07:47:13 2023
    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.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to micky on Thu Mar 2 07:46:42 2023
    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.


    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Thu Mar 2 13:41:46 2023
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:ttpi9t$3knfk$2@dont-email.me...

    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

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Thu Mar 2 21:37:06 2023
    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.
    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Gold on Fri Mar 3 12:20:09 2023
    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.

    Was it too late to influence the justices in their decision, since it
    was already made, or were they trying to influence them to change a
    detail next time?

    BTW, although MSNBC mixes opinion into much of what they say, especially
    I think, from 7PM until 5AM, I think I always notice and I can discount opinions as only opinions. This is the first example I noticed of MSNBC
    being wrong about a fact or very close to wrong, since they said flatly
    iirc that it wasn't illegal. I heard the rerun too, though by now I've forgotten the exact words.

    I used to like the more varied topics of NPR, but listening to MSNBC is
    like eating candy all day long, since they spend a lot of time dumping
    on trump.

    And btw, customary news practice is to specify a full name the first
    time a name is used in a news story and then to use only the last name
    for the rest of the story. Why does just about everyone consstantly call
    him by his first and last name, even when there is no chance they are
    talking about someone else in the family? I find it really annoying.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to micky on Fri Mar 3 21:05:11 2023
    "micky" wrote in message news:8qa40ih19t1m3ah2q3644k5s3gu2365oim@4ax.com...

    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.


    Has this statute been challenged in the courts? I would argue that anyone
    who writes an article expressing an opinion about any pending case could be said to be attempting to "influence" the judge or jury member. When the
    draft of the SC abortion decision was leaked, there were all kind of opinion articles expressing a position on the case, which at that point had not been finalized. Nobody said these expressions of opinion were illegal. So why would peacefully demonstrating in a public place that happened to be near a judge's home to express an opinion be any different? Seems to me that
    making it illegal to merely express an opinion, whether it is through a
    written article, a public utterance or just peacefully demonstrating in a public place with a sign should be blatantly unconstitutional. That's why I wonder if anyone has ever been charged under this law or if it has been
    tested.


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 7 08:46:11 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Elle N on Wed Mar 8 12:23:38 2023
    Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:

    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

    Reasonable restrictions are certainly constitutional. Look at the
    restrictions on abortion protesters at clinics that were determined to
    be valid. I'd think the rules would be similar.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Elle N on Fri Mar 10 23:23:12 2023
    On 3/7/2023 8:46 AM, Elle N wrote:
    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

    Thank you. 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.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sat Mar 11 07:37:09 2023
    On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:23:17 AM UTC-6, Barry Gold wrote:
    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.

    For me, I am holding these arguments in mind:

    1.
    The 1965 Cox v. Louisiana SCOTUS decision speaks of the Court's concern
    that mob rule could become... the rule. This seems a fair point. I do not want judges and justices making decisions because they feel someone will, in the extreme, kill them if they rule such-and-such way.

    2.
    On the other hand, Justices are on record as saying they want to rule in a way they believe contemporary society will accept. From Lewis Powell in the
    Bakke decision to Anthony Kennedy in some of the homosexual decisions
    to Ginsburg being on record as favoring an incremental approach (possibly deriving in large part from strategies established by Thurgood Marshall when he was a civil rights attorney. To be "effective" as a Justice or appeals court judge,
    one has to be competent at consensus building. Maybe this is obvious to
    many people but it did not really sink in for me until I had read both certain Court decisions over the years and certain, well-researched biographical reports
    that integrate judges' personal beliefs about how justice should advance with legal strategy with what actually happened in court rulings. This to me means that many judge and justices in fact do take a pulse on societal desires. Which I think tends to support an argument for people should being allowed to protest in front of judges' and justices' homes.

    Until such point that judges and justices' lives are so disrupted they cannot even get their work done?

    I figure: Some restrictions on "political speech" are going to be appropriate. Some are not. A line has to be drawn, with the usual adjustments made in the future as
    different situations arise.

    Thank you Stuart for reminding me that the present restrictions on free speech cut
    both ways.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to micky on Wed Mar 15 15:46:48 2023
    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


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Mar 15 18:04:05 2023
    On 3/15/2023 3:46 PM, RichD wrote:
    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

    Because he wasn't demonstrating in front of Kavanaugh's home.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)