The Oppression of Free Speech

The Law

Larry434 wrote:

"If he was going to be charged and convicted of knowingly and willfully staying in a "restricted area" after being told to leave--due process requires that he have actual notice concerning the boundaries of the restricted area so he could conform his conduct to the requirements of law. He was not given notice of the boundaries. There was no law that required him to go home or to remove himself to the "free speech zone." The law allowed him to stand outside the boundaries of the "restricted area" if only he knew where those boundaries were."

With all due respect, debra, are you saying that ignorance of the law is a valid defense?

No, Larry. As I stated in my post, I am referring the "Due Process" clause and the constitutional requirement of notice. If the law makes it unlawful to enter and remain in a "restricted area," due process requires that the accused have knowledge of the boundaries of said "restricted area" so that he may conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Not only may the application of the law violate the First Amendment, but it may also violate the Due Process Clause.

0 Replies

thank you

msolga wrote:

This has been a really informative & enthralling discussion, Debra!

Hopefully, the discussion will cause an eye or two to open just a little wider and cause some to question whether the U.S. Constitution has teeth or merely serves as "feel good" language that allows us to espouse our moral superiority even though we don't practice what we preach.

Freedom is measured by the extent that political dissent is tolerated and encouraged. When our own government attempts to silence our voices and hide political dissent away in "free speech zones," then the foundation of our nation is crumbling. Do we care?

I do.

0 Replies

So do I, Debra! .... from far away, in another country.

0 Replies

Re: The Law

Debra_Law wrote:

Larry434 wrote:
"If he was going to be charged and convicted of knowingly and willfully staying in a "restricted area" after being told to leave--due process requires that he have actual notice concerning the boundaries of the restricted area so he could conform his conduct to the requirements of law. He was not given notice of the boundaries. There was no law that required him to go home or to remove himself to the "free speech zone." The law allowed him to stand outside the boundaries of the "restricted area" if only he knew where those boundaries were."

With all due respect, debra, are you saying that ignorance of the law is a valid defense?

No, Larry. As I stated in my post, I am referring the "Due Process" clause and the constitutional requirement of notice. If the law makes it unlawful to enter and remain in a "restricted area," due process requires that the accused have knowledge of the boundaries of said "restricted area" so that he may conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Not only may the application of the law violate the First Amendment, but it may also violate the Due Process Clause.

Are you speaking of the right of the accused "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation", when you cite the constitutional requirement of notice?

0 Replies

Let R be the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. Then R is neither a member of itself nor not a member of itself.

0 Replies

Re: The Law

Larry434 wrote:

Are you speaking of the right of the accused "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation", when you cite the constitutional requirement of notice?

No Larry, I am referring to the notice requirement of the Due Process Clause.

It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness as applied if its prohibitions are not clearly defined in order to allow the accused to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Obviously, a "restricted area" is going to vary from one location to another where the President may be temporarily present. There must be a clearly marked or designated point of ingress and egress from the "restricted area" established temporarily by government officials in charge of protecting the president. Without clearly defined boundaries to establish the "restricted area," an accused cannot know if his ingress into any particular area is unlawful. An accused cannot know if he has accomplished a lawful "egress" upon being asked to leave if the outer boundaries of said "restricted area" are not defined.

0 Replies

Debra:

Is there a "due process" clause in the Constitution other than the 5th and 14th Amendments, to wit:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...

Amendment XIIII

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

If not, I need further education on how "Constitutional notice" applies to informing a person violating a restricted area that he is so doing, except as coincident to his arrest.

0 Replies

Due Process

Quote:

It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. 3 Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. 4 A vague law impermissibly delegates [408 U.S. 104, 109] basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. 5 Third, but related, where a vague statute "abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms," 6 it "operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms." 7 Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to "`steer far wider of the unlawful zone' . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked." 8

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 (1972).

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/408/104.html

0 Replies

Re: Due Process

Debra_Law wrote:

Quote:
It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. 3 Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. 4 A vague law impermissibly delegates [408 U.S. 104, 109] basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. 5 Third, but related, where a vague statute "abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms," 6 it "operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms." 7 Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to "`steer far wider of the unlawful zone' . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked." 8

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 (1972).

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/408/104.html

Debra: In the case cited the court found:

"It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. "

"Although the question is close, we conclude that the antinoise ordinance is not impermissibly vague. The court below rejected appellant's arguments "that proscribed conduct was not sufficiently specified and that police were given too broad a discretion in determining whether conduct was proscribed." 46 Ill. 2d, at 494, 263 N. E. 2d, at 867"

So your reason for citing this case in support of your argument was?

0 Replies

Larry, Larry, Larry . . .
Larry WROTE:

Quote:

Debra:

Is there a "due process" clause in the Constitution other than the 5th and 14th Amendments, to wit:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...

Amendment XIIII

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

If not, I need further education on how "Constitutional notice" applies to informing a person violating a restricted area that he is so doing, except as coincident to his arrest.

Larry, Larry, Larry: There are millions of cases out there that explain the notice requirements of the due process. You were perplexed because you couldn't understand the notice requirements from reading either the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. You didn't know what I was talking about and you asked for education. I provided you with a link to a case that explained the notice requirements of due process.

Now that you have been provided with that basic legal information (knowledge), why don't you read a few hundred cases so that you get a good working feel for the legal concepts involved, and then apply your new-found knowledge to whether or not the due process clause was violated as applied to the prosecution of the individual charged with standing in a "restricted area."

0 Replies

Re: Larry, Larry, Larry . . .

Debra_Law wrote:

Larry, Larry, Larry: There are millions of cases out there that define the notice requirements of the due process. You were perplexed because you couldn't understand the notice requirements from reading either the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. You asked for education. I provided you with a link to a case that explained the notice requirements of due process.

Now that you have been provided with that basic legal information, why don't you read a million cases so that you get a good working feel for the legal concepts involved and then apply your new-found knowledge to whether or not the due process clause was violated as applied to the prosecution of the individual charged with standing in a "restricted area."

You did not answer where else in the Constitution the "notice requirements of due process" are set out other than the 5th and 14th amendments.

You did not reference in the case you cited where it "explained the notice requirements of due process." I did not see it there, but that does not mean it isn't.

And I won't be reading a million cases, but I have enjoyed the chat while watching the first half of the Titans - Cowboys game.

See ya' later.

0 Replies

I understand the free speech zones leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouths and why anyone would see it as an afront to free expression. I can't find anyone not disturbed by the "caging" of the protesters in Boston.

But neither can I find anyone who is privy to the intelligence given to Director Ridge. I know that many here feel the "post 9/11" stance has been over done, but the truth is there seems to be credible information that al Qaeda was planning a large-scale attack in "an effort to disrupt the democratic process" before Election Day on November 2.

Merely keeping the protesters at a safe distance seems an effort to not only protect those in the convention but the protesters themselves. I can't find a source, but was half listening to the RNC preparations yesterday and heard there are measures in place to safeguard the ventilation and airconditiong system against being used to deliver biological or chemical weapons and thus the need for additional space around the building.

If any of these measures saved even one life, Democrat or Republican, then is giving up that small amount of space so critical?

I agree that no one should have to sign any document to attend any political rally. Ever.

0 Replies

NOTICE -- DUE PROCESS
To educate yourself concerning the NOTICE requirements of due process, Gryned v. City of Rockford should be your starting point to understand the concepts.

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 (1972).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/408/104.html

In Gryned, the U.S. Supreme Court noted its decision was a close call in determining whether the ordinance provided the persons accused with constitutionally adequate notice.

In GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the rule at issue was void for vagueness because it misled the accused.

The Court held:

Quote:

[A]bsent any clarifying interpretation by the state court, the Rule fails to provide "`fair notice to those to whom [it] is directed.'" Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 112 (1972). A lawyer seeking to avail himself of Rule 177(3)'s protection must guess at its contours. . . .

SIMILARLY, a person should not be held criminally liable for standing in a "restricted zone" if the accused must guess at boundaries of said "restricted zone." If the "restricted area" is not explicitly partitioned off and no one will tell him where the outer boundary is so that he may stand where it is legal for him to do so--then the law is unconstitutionally vague as applied to his circumstances.

If you read hundreds of cases concerning the issue of vagueness, you will understand . . . maybe.

0 Replies

To the Schister:

Quote:

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

I still say ignorance of the law is no excuses. Why didn't he ask where the "free speech zone" was? He guessed and that was his error, and now he has to pay the price. They told him to move to the zone and he didn't do it. All he had to do was ask were it was and I'm sure they would have been more then happy to tell him where it was.

If I get pulled over for speeding and didn't know the max limit was 30 and I'm going 50, I'm still breaking the law and will have to pay the fine.

Does anyone ever wonder why court cases take so long to get through?

0 Replies

Re: Larry, Larry, Larry . . .

Larry434 wrote:

You did not answer where else in the Constitution the "notice requirements of due process" are set out other than the 5th and 14th amendments.

You did not reference in the case you cited where it "explained the notice requirements of due process." I did not see it there, but that does not mean it isn't.

And I won't be reading a million cases, but I have enjoyed the chat while watching the first half of the Titans - Cowboys game.

Larry434:

The notice requirements of due process are implicit within the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and implicit within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That should be self-explanatory.

You asked for "education" concerning your questions about the notice requirements of due process and I provided the education by providing both the language to a case that explained the matter and by providing you with a link to the case.

Inasmuch as the quoted language from the Supreme Court case specifically stated, "It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if . . . First . . . Second . . . Third. . . ," it would be redundant for me to point out that the case ""explained the notice requirements of due process."

In the future, I will not take it for granted that you are following the very discussions that you initiate. Rather, I will be redundant and explain more carefully that I am responding to your questions if that helps to clarify what we are talking about.

You don't need to read any cases if you don't want to. We are all responsible for our knowledge or lack thereof. There is no law against spouting off uneducated opinions about the application of the law. Have fun.

0 Replies

incorrect assumption

Baldimo wrote:

I still say ignorance of the law is no excuses. Why didn't he ask where the "free speech zone" was? He guessed and that was his error, and now he has to pay the price. They told him to move to the zone and he didn't do it. All he had to do was ask were it was and I'm sure they would have been more then happy to tell him where it was.

If I get pulled over for speeding and didn't know the max limit was 30 and I'm going 50, I'm still breaking the law and will have to pay the fine.

Does anyone ever wonder why court cases take so long to get through?

You are assuming, and erroneously so, that the "restricted area" covered all areas except the "free speech zone" or the accused's home.

Speeding offenses are civil offenses, not criminal, and are based on strict liability (no specific intent required). Whereas, the federal law prohibiting the accused from standing in a "restricted area" law requires specific criminal intent. Through your speeding analogy, you are comparing apples to oranges.

0 Replies

The question still stands, why didn't he ask where the zone was? I would have. That just makes him dense and not to bright.

0 Replies

free speech

Baldimo wrote:

The question still stands, why didn't he ask where the zone was? I would have. That just makes him dense and not to bright.

Because, Baldimo, a United States citizen is not required to stand in a "free speech zone" in order to exercise the constitutionally-protected right to free speech.

The obvious question is why didn't the police officer or the secret service agent tell the accused where the boundary to the "restricted area" was located so that the accused could know where it was "lawful" and "unlawful" for him to stand so that it was possible for him to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law? Why wasn't the "restricted area" marked or cordoned off?

0 Replies

We you do have to have permits to protest in most US cities. So you can't just protest where you want to.

The police did their jobs of telling him where he could go, I didn't know it was the responsibility of the police to give every little instruction to an intelligent person. They told him where to go and he didn't do as instructed. Doesn't the person involved have any responsibility on the issue.

How do you know that it wasn't setup and marked? Couldn't the person in question have been looking for trouble?

0 Replies

The word, Baldimo, i scheister, and that is rudeness verging on a violation of the Terms of Service. If you want to say bullshit artist, just say it, don't butcher the German language--say what you mean and take the consequences.

0 Replies

The Oppression of Free Speech

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know