A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[c.d.]

Hi Dave,

Neither congress nor the states have the power to pass laws that are unconstitutional. The issue would end up in the lap of the Supreme Court.

c.d.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=c.d.;149822][QUOTE=Rubyretro;149813]

A sporting event is held on private property. Here in the U.S., sidewalks are considered public formums.

I'm not American c.d., so I can't argue about 'rights' in your country;
here in France, we have (for example) a half marathon run from Marseille to Cassis along public roads, and a bike ride around the ramparts of Avignon..
(there must be thousands more events, and I'm only commentating on those
that I know personally).

Roads and sidewalks may be public, but there are metal barriers up and you cannot cross the road (Tour de France is another). I have tried it and got policemen with blowing whistles and and security guards rushing down to stop me. This is good sense, since you need safety and discipline at a public events..it might be a bit of a bummer if you are not interested in the event, live in the town, and want to use the public walkways -but only the biggest prat would object to being inconveinienced for a short time. The local authorities (elected by the community) are well within their rights to cordon off areas and direct crowds.

[c.d.]

Now that would be a can of worms....

c.d.

[protohistorian]

C.D. I will go one further. All the national congress has to do is say that states can regulate speech according to time and location as it relates to any other event. Each state can define it's own standards. I can assure we in Kansas would hook Fred right on up with a no fly list that would include veteran funerals. Dave

[protohistorian]

Americans hold things like funerals,weddings, graduations, birthdays, certain religous ceremonies, certain established holidays, and personal anniversary's signifigant for the participating people. These are culturally defined values that have already been defined in other laws. Defining the signifigant events is a non issue as other laws have largely done this already. Dave

[c.d.]

Hi Dave,

What constitutes a deeply personal experience? And could I have a deeply personal experience that is different from yours? And if we say no protests at funerals, what location is next? I think you see the slope here.

c.d.

[protohistorian]

I would define it as any deeply personal experience is off limits. With deeply personal being a reflection of the cultural values of the country. Dave

[protohistorian]

Hello C.D. It is not slippery at all. If your protest is designed to work in concert with or diametrically oppossed to a culturally bound tradition your petition to protest may be denied based on what you are seeking to do. Americans have overwhelming support for the sanctity of burial. The also have a reverance for veterans, so that kind of protest should be restricted. Dave

[c.d.]

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. There should exist spatial and temporal restrictions to free speech. This already exist as far as causing injury. Lets get real joe jackass is not parading around the cemetary every day, he has picked a specific time to do it because of another event. This kind of location targeting should be prohibited. Dave

Hi Dave,

I see your point but that is a huge slippery slope. Where does it end?

c.d.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;149813]

But surely the public property in question comes under the authority of the
people voted in to administer (I'm English, so I'd say 'Council', and I don't know what the American equivalent is) ?

If it were (say) a Sports Event being held, then surely this same authority would be able to rope areas off, and indicate areas where people must go to (there would be mayhem if they couldn't). In France they certainly liase with the organisers of demonstraters on their itinerary.

So there must be a legal way of making the contact between the mourners and the demonstraters a matter of choice ?

A sporting event is held on private property. Here in the U.S., sidewalks are considered public formums.

c.d.

[protohistorian]

But then aren't you saying that your right to free speech only exists in certain places?

c.d.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. There should exist spatial and temporal restrictions to free speech. This already exist as far as causing injury. Lets get real joe jackass is not parading around the cemetary every day, he has picked a specific time to do it because of another event. This kind of location targeting should be prohibited. Dave

[Derrick]

The Government tells me that smoking causes cancer. They tell me all the time. They print it on the cigarette boxes. They ban cigarette advertising. They ban smoking in so-called public spaces (even though many of these are in fact private spaces, e.g. pubs and shops). I am still alowed to smoke on the pavement (at the moment).

If someone runs up to me while I'm smoking and says "Smoking causes cancer, you know" I'll say "Yeah, Ok" or whatever. But if that person starts walking along beside me, banging on about smoking and how I ought to stop, then he is invading my space (even though I'm in the street) and I will object to that.

Hi Robert
I am an ardent smoker and have never had anyone approach me about it in the street. God help 'em if they did though!

Derrick

[Derrick]

[quote=Rubyretro;149813]

But surely the public property in question comes under the authority of the
people voted in to administer (I'm English, so I'd say 'Council', and I don't know what the American equivalent is) ?

If it were (say) a Sports Event being held, then surely this same authority would be able to rope areas off, and indicate areas where people must go to (there would be mayhem if they couldn't). In France they certainly liase with the organisers of demonstraters on their itinerary.

So there must be a legal way of making the contact between the mourners and the demonstraters a matter of choice ?

Hi Ruby

I see what you are saying.

To get the state to intervene usually leads to one side, or both, losing which is not fair in my my view.

My view is to completely ignore the tw*t and do what Ian Hislop and Paul Merton did to Nick Griffin on "Have I Got News For You" by failing to even recognise who the wan*er was.

There are, after all, 2 sides to every story. Fight for your rights people.

The other way is to counter Phelps' nonsense by picketing his house and see how he likes it. He may get tired of the hassle after a while. These people hate being exposed for the bigots that they are.

Derrrick

[Robert]

The Government tells me that smoking causes cancer. They tell me all the time. They print it on the cigarette boxes. They ban cigarette advertising. They ban smoking in so-called public spaces (even though many of these are in fact private spaces, e.g. pubs and shops). I am still alowed to smoke on the pavement (at the moment).

If someone runs up to me while I'm smoking and says "Smoking causes cancer, you know" I'll say "Yeah, Ok" or whatever. But if that person starts walking along beside me, banging on about smoking and how I ought to stop, then he is invading my space (even though I'm in the street) and I will object to that.

[Mr. Candlebridge]

I just read that although the Supreme judges would like to interfere because of the distress the protestors are causing, it is still protected by First Amendment speech. The family was actually awarded $11 Million because of the pinpointed attack, but then lowered it to $5 Million...and then later just threw it out, because it was un-Constitutional decision. I guess they are meeting today...?