How Dare They Hold Up That Sign?

when my free speech is violated, i can sue, correct? thus the first amendment applies to me and everyone else. The first amendment, among other things that apply to congress and state governments - guarantees ME the freedom of speech, association and assembly, and religion. Therefore it does apply to me and every last citizen of this country.

When people play bridge, watch sports, etc., most of them do not want to be immersed in political protests, or similar, especially if what is espoused is personally obnoxious. Such things have their place elsewhere.

when my free speech is violated, i can sue, correct? thus the first amendment applies to me and everyone else. The first amendment, among other things that apply to congress and state governments - guarantees ME the freedom of speech, association and assembly, and religion. Therefore it does apply to me and every last citizen of this country.

The authorities will not help you with free speech issues in a private venue, and you cannot sue them for this. For instance, your private employer can order you not to discuss business matters with outsiders, and you would have no legal recourse.

A non-profit organization that uses United States in its title (United States Bridge Federation) should be expected to uphold the values in the United States Constitution.

wandeljw wrote:

A non-profit organization that uses United States in its title (United States Bridge Federation) should be expected to uphold the values in the United States Constitution.

Actually I disagree; I'm not at all sure just what it would mean "to uphold the values in the United States Constitution"; I also think that if the United States Bridge Federation wants to be seen in the eyes of the world as idiots it's their right to do so.

I am astonished when people state that the "Bill of Rights" only applies to government. How did that rumor get started?

Advocate wrote:

Dagmar, AI applies to all of federal govt., as well as, by virtue of A14, all of state and local govts. Since A1 provides for free speech, A10 has no application.

When people play bridge, watch sports, etc., most of them do not want to be immersed in political protests, or similar, especially if what is espoused is personally obnoxious. Such things have their place elsewhere.

However, if the protests involve Bush and his policies, all is allowed.

Who gives a f*ck what they want?

I am not obliged to consider what other people want when I choose my actions.

Cycloptichorn

right, but if I can sue the government, then it still applies to me.

and when a group stops me from exercising my freedom of speech, i do get to rely on authorities to fix the situation. if they fail to, i can, again, sue the government. i mean, there are hundreds of court cases around the first amendment submited and won (or lost) by private citizens.

so, being no constitutional lawyer, i still don't see how the first amendment would not apply to private citizen. from all that was said so far it seems that it very much does.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Dagmar, AI applies to all of federal govt., as well as, by virtue of A14, all of state and local govts. Since A1 provides for free speech, A10 has no application.

When people play bridge, watch sports, etc., most of them do not want to be immersed in political protests, or similar, especially if what is espoused is personally obnoxious. Such things have their place elsewhere.

However, if the protests involve Bush and his policies, all is allowed.

Who gives a f*ck what they want?

I am not obliged to consider what other people want when I choose my actions.

Cycloptichorn

That is the most illogical statement you have ever made.
Other people want to drive without risking an accident, but you would put them all at risk by driving drunk.

Other people want to be able to eat in a restaraunt without smelling cigarrette smoke,but you dont think you should have to abide by the rules.

Since you dont feel obligated to care about others or what they want, why do you think that you are due the same consideration?

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Dagmar, AI applies to all of federal govt., as well as, by virtue of A14, all of state and local govts. Since A1 provides for free speech, A10 has no application.

When people play bridge, watch sports, etc., most of them do not want to be immersed in political protests, or similar, especially if what is espoused is personally obnoxious. Such things have their place elsewhere.

However, if the protests involve Bush and his policies, all is allowed.

Who gives a f*ck what they want?

I am not obliged to consider what other people want when I choose my actions.

Cycloptichorn

That is the most illogical statement you have ever made.
Other people want to drive without risking an accident, but you would put them all at risk by driving drunk.

Other people want to be able to eat in a restaraunt without smelling cigarrette smoke,but you dont think you should have to abide by the rules.

Since you dont feel obligated to care about others or what they want, why do you think that you are due the same consideration?

Well, in this society we generally distinguish between physical harm and disagreeing with someone's opinion.

Provided that I am not directly inciting physical harm upon someone, I - and anyone - are perfectly free to say what we like. I am not obliged to consider whether you want me to say it, in any way.

Cycloptichorn

Who gives a f*ck what they want?

I am not obliged to consider what other people want when I choose my actions.

dagmaraka wrote:

right, but if I can sue the government, then it still applies to me.

and when a group stops me from exercising my freedom of speech, i do get to rely on authorities to fix the situation. if they fail to, i can, again, sue the government. i mean, there are hundreds of court cases around the first amendment submited and won (or lost) by private citizens.

so, being no constitutional lawyer, i still don't see how the first amendment would not apply to private citizen. from all that was said so far it seems that it very much does.

THe BoR tells the govt what it can and cannot do, thats all.
It applies to a private citizen only in their dealings with the govt.

If a private citizen or a private club wants to limit what happens on their property or in their club, they have that right.

To put it bluntly, your rights end at my door.

When people play bridge, watch sports, etc., most of them do not want to be immersed in political protests, or similar, especially if what is espoused is personally obnoxious. Such things have their place elsewhere.

mysteryman wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

right, but if I can sue the government, then it still applies to me.

and when a group stops me from exercising my freedom of speech, i do get to rely on authorities to fix the situation. if they fail to, i can, again, sue the government. i mean, there are hundreds of court cases around the first amendment submited and won (or lost) by private citizens.

so, being no constitutional lawyer, i still don't see how the first amendment would not apply to private citizen. from all that was said so far it seems that it very much does.

THe BoR tells the govt what it can and cannot do, thats all.
It applies to a private citizen only in their dealings with the govt.

If a private citizen or a private club wants to limit what happens on their property or in their club, they have that right.

To put it bluntly, your rights end at my door.

Sure, i'm talking though about the IMPLEMENTATION of the BoR. It applies to all citizens, not just governments. All are the bearers of the rights safeguarded in the BoR. Whether there are limits or not. After all, it is not the Bill of Government's Rights and Duties.