Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:In regard to government property, why wouldn't it?

It's right there in the Constitution. Or are some parts of the Constitution more "Constitutiony" than others?

Yep. The articles give a power, the amendments define that power's boundary.

Again we are back to your understanding of Constitutional Law (though perhaps just Law would suffice) and how you could have saved us all a bunch of time.

Awesome, maybe you can use that saved time to make an argument instead of an ad-hom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:So it would be legal for congress to make a law allowing slavery on public land, since article IV says they can make the rules on public land.

Cause that's what you're inadvertently implying here.

It depends on whether or not the Court upheld the law.

Well since we're already talking about rulings that the court made that I dissagree with, we're so far into theoryland that our interpretations are more valid than a court. How the court ruled on my argument is already done.

If Congress amended the constitution so that slavery was legal again then yes slavery can again be legal. Look at the 18th amendment.

So if a 28th amendment was added that repealed the 13th amendment we could all have slaves.

halonachos wrote:If Congress amended the constitution

But of course it's MY constitutional understanding that's lacking

Rented Tritium wrote:
Awesome, maybe you can use that saved time to make an argument instead of an ad-hom.

Ad hominem isn't necessarily invalid when it contributes to the argument, as it does in this case because you really do appear to have a weak grasp of how our legal system functions.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Well since we're already talking about rulings that the court made that I dissagree with, we're so far into theoryland that our interpretations are more valid than a court. How the court ruled on my argument is already done.

No, not really, and this goes back the Ahtman's point about your grasp of the legal system. As with all law, the Constituion only matters in the context of how its upheld. You can argue till you're blue in the face regarding how it should be upheld, but its pointless outside rhetoric, and your approach here is hardly the sort that's likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree.

You're not using reason, you're brow-beating and ignoring the reality of interpretation. This was most notable regarding your consideration of words like "abridge" which are not Constitutionally defined.

Also, the "theoryland" argument is a bad one, because once you start going down that road I can say something like "Well, the First Amendment should be repealed anyway, so the point is moot." Its just an attempt to obviate criticism of your position without having to address it.

Man, if there's ANYTHING in this thread I'll defend endlessly, it's what abridge means in the first amendment.

Saying it only means "take completely away" makes the first amendment effectively meaningless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
No, not really, and this goes back the Ahtman's point about your grasp of the legal system. As with all law, the Constituion only matters in the context of how its upheld. You can argue till you're blue in the face regarding how it should be upheld, but its pointless outside rhetoric, and your approach here is hardly the sort that's likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree.

By this argument, we should never argue about law ever, because the courts are the ultimate authority, not an internet message board. I mean sure, that's fine if you think so, you're free to not read my posts.

Rented Tritium wrote:Man, if there's ANYTHING in this thread I'll defend endlessly, it's what abridge means in the first amendment.

Saying it only means "take completely away" makes the first amendment effectively meaningless.

That's not the point. The point is that there are multiple definitions of abridge, and therefore that particular Amendment requires interpretation, which is ultimately why we have the Supreme Court.

You should also note that if we substitute abridge for an equivalent phrase like "reduce in scope" we still have to answer a question regarding what the original scope was in the first place which, again, doesn't really contribute to your notion that the First Amendment indicates that the Freedom of Speech is implied to be equal in all places everywhere, particularly given that Constitutional Rights are generally thought as protections, and not rights in and of themselves.

Of course, that's before we even start asking questions about what "freedom" and "speech" constitute.

Rented Tritium wrote:
By this argument, we should never argue about law ever, because the courts are the ultimate authority, not an internet message board. I mean sure, that's fine if you think so, you're free to not read my posts.

Actually, no, that isn't what my argument implies. My argument implies that if you're going to argue about the law, you should understand the context in which that law exists.

dogma wrote: notion that the First Amendment implies Freedom of Speech is implied to be equal in all places everywhere

Are you questioning this?

My right to have congress not make a law respecting religion, restricting my freedom to assemble or express myself does indeed extend everywhere.

Other things may restrict that and congress may restrict other things, but the first amendment does indeed apply everywhere.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Are you questioning this?

My right to have congress not make a law respecting religion, restricting my freedom to assemble or express myself does indeed extend everywhere.

Other things may restrict that and congress may restrict other things, but the first amendment does indeed apply everywhere.

I see you've chosen to ignore the word "equal".

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no intention of debating honestly.

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?

Yup.

It doesn't mention permits at all.

It is interesting to me to note that the 2nd Ammendment also does not mention permits, or background checks mandated by the Federal Gov't. Yet these are accepted.

I also submit that a state or town or whatever level of Gov't requires the permit to gather does not limit free speech as much as it enables public safety and enforces the need to plan the venue for your free speech.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Are you questioning this?

My right to have congress not make a law respecting religion, restricting my freedom to assemble or express myself does indeed extend everywhere.

Other things may restrict that and congress may restrict other things, but the first amendment does indeed apply everywhere.

I see you've chosen to ignore the word "equal".

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no intention of debating honestly.

Insert equal then. Congress doesn't sometimes have the ability to respect religion or restrict speech or assembly. It applies everywhere all the time equally. Congress can never do those things full stop.

Happy?

dogma wrote:No, not really, and this goes back the Ahtman's point about your grasp of the legal system. As with all law, the Constituion only matters in the context of how its upheld. You can argue till you're blue in the face regarding how it should be upheld, but its pointless outside rhetoric, and your approach here is hardly the sort that's likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree.

This really is passing the buck Dogma.

A person's views on the application of part of the Constitution does matter for a number of reasons. It impacts how they vote for leaders, how they act within the scope of those laws, and their arguments may be persuasive or impact others' views of the law. Even Judges have some sort of theory of the Constitution that guides their decisions.

Admittedly, Rented Tritium's arguments aren't particularly good or persuasive, but his view on the Constitution at least bears some relevance outside of rhetoric.

An important question I haven't seen addressed is whether, under Rented Tritium's view, Congress (or a State if we're accepting the judicially created doctrine of incorporation) could pass a law prohibiting slander, fraudulent advertising, or even incitement.

CptJake wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?

Yup.

It doesn't mention permits at all.

It is interesting to me to note that the 2nd Ammendment also does not mention permits, or background checks mandated by the Federal Gov't. Yet these are accepted.

I agree!

I also submit that a state or town or whatever level of Gov't requires the permit to gather does not limit free speech as much as it enables public safety and enforces the need to plan the venue for your free speech.

Like I said before, if you are going to be blocking something or protesting somewhere that has constant protests, the government gets to use permits to manage the land and arrange for special needs. If you are not doing anything you couldn't do as an individual, you should not need a permit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
An important question I haven't seen addressed is whether, under Rented Tritium's view, Congress (or a State if we're accepting the judicially created doctrine of incorporation) could pass a law prohibiting slander, fraudulent advertising, or even incitement.

This is a GREAT question!

Yes, there is still unprotected speech. My view is that unprotected speech should be much narrower than it is now, but yes, when there is a functional, demonstratable injury or damage done by speech where a reasonable person should have known better etc etc, I am totally cool with the way it's been handled by scotus. I feel that this the APPROPRIATE application of the right to swing fist ends at face concept, unlike needing a permit because I might annoy someone in a park.

The thing I really don't like is the idea that I can arrange a softball game on a public park and it's totally fine, but if those same people hold signs, suddenly I need to ask permission. The government gets to manage its land when reasonable, but if I am already being allowed to go somewhere wearing a t shirt with a message on it, but a sign is magically something I need a permit for, something has gone wrong with the first amendment. In that case the government is picking and choosing mediums to respect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it were up to me, you'd be able to protest anywhere that you could legally go and speak as an individual, but you could be required to NOTIFY officials under certain circumstances.

biccat wrote:
This really is passing the buck Dogma.

A person's views on the application of part of the Constitution does matter for a number of reasons. It impacts how they vote for leaders, how they act within the scope of those laws, and their arguments may be persuasive or impact others' views of the law. Even Judges have some sort of theory of the Constitution that guides their decisions.

Admittedly, Rented Tritium's arguments aren't particularly good or persuasive, but his view on the Constitution at least bears some relevance outside of rhetoric.

I didn't mean to use "rhetoric" in the sense of "bombast", but in the sense of "the skillful use of language". The point being he should try and be more nuanced in his approach.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Yes, there is still unprotected speech. My view is that unprotected speech should be much narrower than it is now, but yes, when there is a functional, demonstratable injury or damage done by speech where a reasonable person should have known better etc etc, I am totally cool with the way it's been handled by scotus.

So the Freedom of Speech does not apply equally in all places at all times.

Rented Tritium wrote:
The thing I really don't like is the idea that I can arrange a softball game on a public park and it's totally fine, but if those same people hold signs, suddenly I need to ask permission. The government gets to manage its land when reasonable, but if I am already being allowed to go somewhere wearing a t shirt with a message on it, but a sign is magically something I need a permit for, something has gone wrong with the first amendment. In that case the government is picking and choosing mediums to respect.

You probably wouldn't need to get a permit for holding a sign, if it were just you, or even a small group, but if a large group assembled, all wearing similar t-shirts, you would still probably need a permit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
If it were up to me, you'd be able to protest anywhere that you could legally go and speak as an individual, but you could be required to NOTIFY officials under certain circumstances.

That's pretty much how it works.

dogma wrote:
That's pretty much how it works.

Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.

That's the problem.

The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.

dogma wrote:I didn't mean to use "rhetoric" in the sense of "bombast", but in the sense of "the skillful use of language". The point being he should try and be more nuanced in his approach.

Fair enough. But then that statement pretty much covers everyone.

Rented Tritium wrote:Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.

Not really at their discretion. Only if you fail to comply with the technical requirements.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.

That's the problem.

The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.

I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.

The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.

That's the problem.

The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.

I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.

The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.

Protesters already pay for services they draw from the city. They're called taxes.

If it's too expensive to let people exercise their rights, then you're doing the whole "government" thing wrong.

You should get to protest either way. If the government doesn't feel like showing up, that's their business. You notified them. When my house catches on fire, I don't even HAVE to notify the government and they still come. In this case, I want to tell them so they can be ready if they think they need to show up. How nice is that?

Rented Tritium wrote:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.

That's the problem.

The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.

I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.

The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.

Protesters already pay for services they draw from the city. They're called taxes.

If it's too expensive to let people exercise their rights, then you're doing the whole "government" thing wrong.

1. What if the protesters aren't from the locale? They are not paying taxes.
2. Judging by the protesters for this event I saw, I don't think there's a lot of tax paying going on.

Rented Tritium wrote:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.

That's the problem.

The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.

I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.

The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.

Protesters already pay for services they draw from the city. They're called taxes.

If it's too expensive to let people exercise their rights, then you're doing the whole "government" thing wrong.

This is a crock-o-crap.

In another post you want cops to protect protesters but don't want the protesters to have to fill out the paperwrok to enable that protection (the permit). Now you are assuming that the city/town/county budget includes enough over time to deal with protesters and that those protesters pay enough taxes to cover those extra man hours. I call BS. How many of the Invade Wall Street crowd pay NY NY taxes and how many just showed up to protest? Why should the citizens of NY NY pay for these crap bags to interupt their lives? Why should NY NY have collected extra taxes to cover the extensive clean up and LE overtime just in case a group of undisciplined crap bags invade their city to 'exercise thier right to free speech'?

Go to a small town and it is even worse. Local taxes can't cover crap like this and it is not fair for locals to have to foot the bill.

CptJake wrote:Why should the citizens of NY NY pay for these crap bags to interupt their lives? Why should NY NY have collected extra taxes to cover the extensive clean up and LE overtime just in case a group of undisciplined crap bags invade their city to 'exercise thier right to free speech'?

Yeah, you're right. We should just ban all protests. That would be cheaper.

Also, did you really just put scarequotes around that? Man, that's horrible.

CptJake wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.

That's the problem.

The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.

I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.

The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.

Protesters already pay for services they draw from the city. They're called taxes.

If it's too expensive to let people exercise their rights, then you're doing the whole "government" thing wrong.

This is a crock-o-crap.

In another post you want cops to protect protesters but don't want the protesters to have to fill out the paperwrok to enable that protection (the permit). Now you are assuming that the city/town/county budget includes enough over time to deal with protesters and that those protesters pay enough taxes to cover those extra man hours. I call BS. How many of the Invade Wall Street crowd pay NY NY taxes and how many just showed up to protest? Why should the citizens of NY NY pay for these crap bags to interupt their lives? Why should NY NY have collected extra taxes to cover the extensive clean up and LE overtime just in case a group of undisciplined crap bags invade their city to 'exercise thier right to free speech'?

Go to a small town and it is even worse. Local taxes can't cover crap like this and it is not fair for locals to have to foot the bill.

Like, I think the occupy guys are mostly really dumb and unnecessarily rowdy.

But you can get onto them for the other laws they are breaking. They have the right to protest though. The stuff you can totally arrest them for is the other crap they get up to in the process. There's no reason to restrict their right to protest, you're already restricting their right to litter and block traffic via other laws.

When you are restricting rights because they MIGHT break another law instead of just enforcing that other law, you're doing it wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as long as we're talking about costs to local government, do you think it's appropriate to deny permits because you don't think you can't afford the police??

That seems like it is probably not what the permits are designed for. Freedoms should always trump beancounting.

Did you EVER see anything I typed indicate I want to ban ANY protests? If so, point it out, if not quit putting words in my mouth.

I put qoutes aroung 'exercise their free speech' because I find their illegal actions to be an infringement on the rights of the folks who live and work where these leaches have chosen to occupy. They are NOT legally assembling, when you break the law and infringe on the rights of others, as these folks clearly are doing, they cannot start to claim they are exercising a constitutional right. They have no right to infinge on the rights of others.

CptJake wrote:Did you EVER see anything I typed indicate I want to ban ANY protests? If so, point it out, if not quit putting words in my mouth.

I put qoutes aroung 'exercise their free speech' because I find their illegal actions to be an infringement on the rights of the folks who live and work where these leaches have chosen to occupy. They are NOT legally assembling, when you break the law and infringe on the rights of others, as these folks clearly are doing, they cannot start to claim they are exercising a constitutional right. They have no right to infinge on the rights of others.

See, the problem is that you're basically saying the ENTIRE ASSEMBLY is illegal because people IN IT are committing crimes.

Arrest those people then. The assembly ITSELF is still a right.

I'm totally down with the arrests happening up there. Some of those guys are being horrible and breaking other laws.

Camping out is not free speech.

Frazzled wrote:Camping out is not free speech.

Yeah, and if camping there is already illegal, then arrest people who are camping. It's pretty easy.

But that doesn't make speech happening at the same place also illegal. Arrest the campers.

Rented Tritium wrote:Like, I think the occupy guys are mostly really dumb and unnecessarily rowdy.

But you can get onto them for the other laws they are breaking. They have the right to protest though. The stuff you can totally arrest them for is the other crap they get up to in the process. There's no reason to restrict their right to protest, you're already restricting their right to litter and block traffic via other laws.

These kids have NO right to litter or block traffic. The fact that you consider those to be rights is disgusting to me. Those actions infringe on the rights of others.

CptJake wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Like, I think the occupy guys are mostly really dumb and unnecessarily rowdy.

But you can get onto them for the other laws they are breaking. They have the right to protest though. The stuff you can totally arrest them for is the other crap they get up to in the process. There's no reason to restrict their right to protest, you're already restricting their right to litter and block traffic via other laws.

These kids have NO right to litter or block traffic. The fact that you consider those to be rights is disgusting to me. Those actions infringe on the rights of others.

I'm using "right" rhetorically up there to match the cadence of the rest of the post, dude. I don't think it's a right. You can calm down.

The point of the post is that there's no need to restrict their protesting, since you already have other laws to get the bad ones with.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Camping out is not free speech.

Yeah, and if camping there is already illegal, then arrest people who are camping. It's pretty easy.

But that doesn't make speech happening at the same place also illegal. Arrest the campers.

Can we taser them too? I'm starting to get giddy.

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Camping out is not free speech.

Yeah, and if camping there is already illegal, then arrest people who are camping. It's pretty easy.

But that doesn't make speech happening at the same place also illegal. Arrest the campers.

Can we taser them too? I'm starting to get giddy.

If they resist using passive or active force, yes!