Political Activism

[BmorePat87]

(03-10-2017, 12:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless you are talking about the Freedom to peaceful assembly clause and not freedom of speech. 

Your example is not equivalent. To be equivalent I would have to be arguing you cannot tell people they cannot assemble peacefully. This is not the case groups of people are taking active measures to deny folks their right to peaceful assembly, not making their assemblies confrontational.

If we follow your stance then the most forceful group always wins. Governments should work to ensure that does not happen and ensure folks have the right to peacefully assemble no matter how mad it makes some people.

Yea, only the government can be the party who is denying your right to peacefully assemble. Someone also exercising their right to peacefully assemble and promoting a counter cause to your own doesn't deny you your right to continue to assemble. 

People can assault people. They can vandalize the property of others. They can steal from them. They can't deny them their right to assemble, though. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's just a fact.

[*bfine32*]

(03-10-2017, 01:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, only the government can be the party who is denying your right to peacefully assemble. Someone also exercising their right to peacefully assemble and promoting a counter cause to your own doesn't deny you your right to continue to assemble. 

People can assault people. They can vandalize the property of others. They can steal from them. They can't deny them their right to assemble, though. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's just a fact.

Okey Doke

Quote:Both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions protect your right to gather with other people for almost any reason: to express your religious views, to protest, even to have a party. But this doesn't mean you can do any of these things without restriction. You have the freedom to express your views in a group, but you can't disturb the public peace or infringe on anyone else's rights in the process.

http://civil-rights.lawyers.com/civil-liberties/the-right-to-gather-has-some-restrictions.html
So if I am understanding your facts correctly then: It is OK if the purpose of your assembly is to deny me my right to peaceably assemble.

[BmorePat87]

(03-10-2017, 01:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke

http://civil-rights.lawyers.com/civil-liberties/the-right-to-gather-has-some-restrictions.html
So if I am understanding your facts correctly then: It is OK if the purpose of your assembly is to deny me my right to peaceably assemble.

I never stated you cannot infringe upon any rights as a private citizen, hence me listing illegal things you can do to others while they assemble. I specifically stated that you cannot infringe upon the right of others to peacefully assemble. The Bill of Rights lists restrictions on the power of the government. 

Even if you bother someone while they are assembling or assemble as they are assembling, they are still legally allowed to assemble. You're allowed to have a bigger and louder assembly. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-10-2017, 03:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I never stated you cannot infringe upon any rights as a private citizen, hence me listing illegal things you can do to others while they assemble. I specifically stated that you cannot infringe upon the right of others to peacefully assemble. The Bill of Rights lists restrictions on the power of the government. 

Ah, So you agreed with the principle, just had an issue with the semantics. You're also leaving out peaceably in your points.

WTS, this will go nowhere. You think it is legal to have an assembly whose purpose is to stop someone else for peaceably assembling; I think you are not allowed to do this. Perhaps it will go to SCOTUS or at least SCOPNR.

[BmorePat87]

(03-10-2017, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ah, So you agreed with the principle, just had an issue with the semantics. You're also leaving out peaceably in your points.

WTS, this will go nowhere. You think it is legal to have an assembly whose purpose is to stop someone else for peaceably assembling; I think you are not allowed to do this. Perhaps it will go to SCOTUS or at least SCOPNR.

No. 

[GMDino]

(03-10-2017, 03:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No. 

But he "thinks" it.  In the Trump Error Era that is the same as being true....right?

[*bfine32*]

(03-10-2017, 03:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No. 

Yes

[*bfine32*]

(03-10-2017, 04:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: But he "thinks" it.  In the Trump Error Era that is the same as being true....right?

GMDino Wrote:I just kinda lurk around here curelessly looking for gotchas

[GMDino]

I do find it flattering that you had to make up a quote of mine while I use actual quotes of yours.

Solid post.

[*bfine32*]

(03-10-2017, 05:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: I do find it flattering that you had to make up a quote of mine while I use actual quotes of yours.

Solid post.

Well to be fair, you do have to say something of substance before it can be quoted. Hard to quote a meme

[GMDino]

(03-10-2017, 05:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well to be fair, you do have to say something of substance before it can be quoted. Hard to quote a meme

You're funny. ™

[BmorePat87]

(03-10-2017, 04:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: But he "thinks" it.  In the Trump Error Era that is the same as being true....right?

The problem with government is that there is so much that is just based on what people "feel" that they start confusing facts like "the Bill of Rights puts limits on the Government" as something that is a matter of opinion.

"Well, I FEEL like it should also limit the actions of other citizens". That's great, propose an amendment that rewrites the 1st. 

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about this particular person failing a state assessment, so I can just let them hold their "belief". 

[*bfine32*]

(03-10-2017, 08:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The problem with government is that there is so much that is just based on what people "feel" that they start confusing facts like "the Bill of Rights puts limits on the Government" as something that is a matter of opinion.

"Well, I FEEL like it should also limit the actions of other citizens". That's great, propose an amendment that rewrites the 1st. 

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about this particular person failing a state assessment, so I can just let them hold their "belief". 

You might want to bring this point up with Matt as we were having a discussion earlier in the week and he asserted that everything in the Constitution is someone's interpretation. Of course he may not be the staunch Constitutionalist that you are. He may think it's a living document open to interpretation. 

Personally I feel folks are free to assemble until that assembly starts infringing on the rights of others to assemble or endangers the public safety. Apparently you disagree with the "feeling". Who knows, perhaps it will be challenged in the courts one day. As we know not only do government have the responsibility to protect the Freedom to Assemble they also have the responsibility to keep the peace.  

[BmorePat87]

(03-10-2017, 09:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You might want to bring this point up with Matt as we were having a discussion earlier in the week and he asserted that everything in the Constitution is someone's interpretation. Of course he may not be the staunch Constitutionalist that you are. He may think it's a living document open to interpretation. 

Personally I feel folks are free to assemble until that assembly starts infringing on the rights of others to assemble or endangers the public safety. Apparently you disagree with the "feeling". Who knows, perhaps it will be challenged in the courts one day. As we know not only do government have the responsibility to protect the Freedom to Assemble they also have the responsibility to keep the peace.  

The debate surrounding the 1st Amendment isn't WHO it protects freedom of expression from, it's HOW much of your freedom of expression is protected from the government. Besides the fact that the text specifically states the Congress is the body being restricted, we have historical evidence from Madison and all of those involved in the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that these protections were added because there needed to be a guarantee that the government could not infringe upon these rights. 

I guess someone can interpret "Congress" to be "Private citizen", but I am not sure how many federal judges, conservative or liberal, would entertain that argument. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2017, 12:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The debate surrounding the 1st Amendment isn't WHO it protects freedom of expression from, it's HOW much of your freedom of expression is protected from the government. Besides the fact that the text specifically states the Congress is the body being restricted, we have historical evidence from Madison and all of those involved in the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that these protections were added because there needed to be a guarantee that the government could not infringe upon these rights. 

I guess someone can interpret "Congress" to be "Private citizen", but I am not sure how many federal judges, conservative or liberal, would entertain that argument. 

Fair response and who is right or wrong aside; I would say it is n interesting issue; as many agree that Freedom to Assemble (FTA) has been consumed with Freedom of Speech. I did read that SCOTUS has not ruling on a FTA in over 30 years.
. 
One case I did review was a case from over 100 years ago where SCOTUS declared that a civilian group could not deny another civilian group the FTA. I must admit I cannot find it now but the case was concerning a person whose last name started with C (Italian sounding if I recall) and I would like to read it again. As I do believe we are not talking the same language. I think you are saying Civilians cannot restrict FTA and I an interpreting that by case study as civilians cannot legally restrict FTA but the can physically do so which is a violation.

[BmorePat87]

(03-11-2017, 12:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Fair response and who is right or wrong aside; I would say it is n interesting issue; as many agree that Freedom to Assemble (FTA) has been consumed with Freedom of Speech. I did read that SCOTUS has not ruling on a FTA in over 30 years.
. 
One case I did review was a case from over 100 years ago where SCOTUS declared that a civilian group could not deny another civilian group the FTA. I must admit I cannot find it now but the case was concerning a person whose last name started with C (Italian sounding if I recall) and I would like to read it again. As I do believe we are not talking the same language. I think you are saying Civilians cannot restrict FTA and I an interpreting that by case study as civilians cannot legally restrict FTA but the can physically do so which is a violation.

Private citizens can commit a number of illegal actions that interfere with you assembling, they just cannot be the ones denying it. If I am making a speech in public and someone kidnaps me and gags me, I am physically unable to speak, but this action hasn't violated my freedom to speak. The reason is our First Amendment rights are our ability to express ourselves (via literal and symbolic speech, religion, assembly, petition, and press) without hindrance from the government. 

It may sound like semantics, but as someone who has taken business law classes, you know that the law is often very specific. 

I respect how strongly you feel about this, but we already have laws that would prevent a group from physically preventing another group from carrying out their demonstration. The government can't prevent a second group from lawfully assembling just because they out number the first group. Our expression isn't free from lawful reactions from other private citizens.