The Oppression of Free Speech

Let's get back to basics, folks.

"U.S. Constitution
Amendment I

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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."

No mention of a prohibition of private citizens or organizations abridging free speech. Just a prohibition against Congress making a abridging the freedom of speech.

Let's get back to basics, folks.

"U.S. Constitution
Amendment I

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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."

No mention of a prohibition of private citizens or organizations abridging free speech. Just a prohibition against Congress making a abridging the freedom of speech.

No mention of a prohibition of private citizens or organizations abridging free speech. Just a prohibition against Congress making a abridging the freedom of speech.

Larry434

Quote:

No mention of a prohibition of private citizens or organizations abridging free speech. Just a prohibition against Congress making a abridging the freedom of speech.

Does that mean you think it is OK for City State and County to limit free speech. An to use public employees to enforce it.

Local laws have been established to prescribe "time and place" for the exercise of free speech however.

Larry434 wrote:

Local laws have been established to prescribe "time and place" for the exercise of free speech however.

"Time, place, and manner restrictions" upon pure speech -- especially political speech (e.g., holding an anti-war sign) must be justified by government and must be subjected to strict scrutiny.

Because the time, place, and manner restrictions are NOT CONTENT-NEUTRAL, but rather are based upon the CONTENT of one's message (e.g., pro Bush Administration speech is not quarantined, but anti-Bush Administration speech is quarantined), the restrictions do not pass constitutional muster.

The feature below shows the danger of giving the government unchecked power to censor speech in the name of national security. The National Security Letter (NSL) section of the USA Patriot Act contains a gag provision that prohibits anyone who receives an NSL from "disclos[ing] to any person that the [FBI] has sought or obtained access to information or records." The gag provision continues to prevent the ACLU from disclosing to the public a vast amount of innocuous, non-sensitive information about our constitutional challenge to the NSL power. For example, the government has demanded that the ACLU redact a sentence that described its anonymous client's business as "provid[ing] clients with the ability to access the Internet." The government even insisted that the ACLU black out a direct quote from a Supreme Court case in our brief. ("The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.")

The ACLU continues to contest the government's redactions in the case. The documents below highlight speech that the government suppressed in the case, but the Court later allowed us to disclose. Here is what the government didn't want you to see.

"I wouldn't call the secret service private citizens. "

I would not either, Duck.

"And if there is no law abridging free speech then why are people being arrested for refusing to confine their protests to cages."

Congress has passed no such law.

Local laws have been established to prescribe "time and place" for the exercise of free speech however.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a “No War for Oil” sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a “free speech zone” half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the “free speech zone.”

Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the policeman if “it was the content of my sign, and he said, ‘Yes, sir, it’s the content of your sign that’s the problem.’” Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, “The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing.”

Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department—in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.—quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding “entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.” If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine.

Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.—quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding “entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.” If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine."

The next step. Concentration camps for those who speak against the administration. That sounds very familiar. I wonder why?

Bursey was NOT charged under any federal law probibiting free speech.

"Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.—quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding “entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.” If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine."

Next?

Quote:

Why pray tell was it only restricted for Bursey.

Larry434 wrote:

This is one of those situations where a little education would be helpful before expressing an opinion based upon ignorance or mistake of law.

Law BASICS: A law may be constitutional on its face; but unconstitutional in its application. "[A] statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind."

Please read the Watts case and its progeny and then evaluate your statements with (hopefully) a better understanding of the oppressive use of laws.

WATTS v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)

Debra_Law wrote:

Larry434 wrote:

Bursey was NOT charged under any federal law probibiting free speech.

"Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.—quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding “entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.” If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine."

Next?

This is one of those situations where a little education would be helpful before expressing an opinion based upon ignorance or mistake of law.

Law BASICS: A law may be constitutional on its face; but unconstitutional in its application. "[A] statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind."

Please read the Watts case and its progeny and then evaluate your statements with (hopefully) a better understanding of the oppressive use of laws.

WATTS v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)

"Petitioner's REMARK during political debate at small public gathering..."

This is NOT on point to the charge of "“entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.”

Bursey was NOT charged for anything he said, but with where he was...illegally.

Next.