0
   

The Oppression of Free Speech

 
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 08:57 pm
Sorry didn't mean to misspell in your presense. Sorry of all the name calling I've seen on this board it figures you only speak up when it against one of your own.

I think I just heard someone scream DOUBLE STANDARD.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:02 pm
It does not surprise me that you are having auditory halucinations. No one here has called you any names. You may not like being told that you post drivel, but it is not name-calling. This is a moderated board, and a well-moderated board at that. There are plently of places like Sunspot that you can visit to vilify others with scurrilous name-calling, and you'll have the added bonus of finding a large group of self-congratulatory conservatives there. No one minds you being here and debating. Everyone here has a stake in civility, and even if you attempt to hide behind badly spelled foreign phrases, we'll know what you're talking about, because taken all in all, this is a pretty bright group.

Why don't you ship out, if this place is so distasteful to you--either that or shape up.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:03 pm
The LAW
18 U.S.C. ยง 1752

Quote:
Sec. 1752. - Temporary residences and offices of the President and others

(a)

It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons
-

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in

(i)

any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or other person protected by the Secret Service or as temporary offices of the President and his staff or of any other person protected by the Secret Service, or

(ii)

any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting,


in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress thereto
:

(2)

with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

(3)

willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1); or

(4)

willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).

(b)

Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by a fine under this title or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.

(c)

Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.

(d)

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized -

(1)

to designate by regulations the buildings and grounds which constitute the temporary residences of the President or other person protected by the Secret Service and the temporary offices of the President and his staff or of any other person protected by the Secret Service, and

(2)

to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.

(e)

None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

(f)

As used in this section, the term ''other person protected by the Secret Service'' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection


31 CFR part 408

Quote:
Title 31 -- Money and Finance: Treasury
Subtitle B -- Regulations Relating to Money and Finance
CHAPTER IV -- SECRET SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Part 408 -- Designation of temporary residence of the President or other person protected by the Secret Service and temporary offices of the President and staff, or other person protected by the Secret Service--rules governing access


Sec. 408.1 Authority.

The designation of the buildings and grounds in this part which
constitute the temporary residence of the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service and the temporary offices of the
President and Presidential staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service and the regulations governing access to such
restricted areas where the President or any other person protected by
the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, are promulgated
pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by 18
U.S.C. 1752 (84 Stat. 1891, 96 Stat. 1451).

Sec. 408.2 Designation.

(a) For the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 1752, the buildings and grounds
which constitute temporary residence of the President are as follows:

Santa Barbara County, California home. That certain tract land in
the County of Santa Barbara, State of California, shown and designated
as ``Parcel 1'' on Parcel Map No. 11697 filed January 2, 1973 in Book
11, page 40 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said
County.
This property and the related conditions, restrictions,
reservations, easements, rights and rights of way of record are more
fully described in a Grant Deed recorded with the Santa Barbara County
Recorder's Office (Book 2540, Pages 1381-1385).

(b) For the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1752, the buildings and grounds
which constitute temporary residences of other persons protected by the
Secret Service shall be that property which each designates for
protection by the Secret Service in accord with the provisions of
section 3 of Pub. L. 95-524 (90 Stat. 2475). To the extent that a
further description of such property may be necessary, such description shall be provided by the Secret Service in the form of a verbal or written notice to prospective visitors at each protective site.


(c) For purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1752, the buildings and grounds which
constitute temporary offices of the President and Presidential staff or
offices of other persons protected by the Secret Service shall be those
offices outside of Washington, DC, which are either supplied to the
individual protectee by the government by virtue of that individual's
position/former position with the government or those offices in which
the individual conducts/is conducting his or her business affairs. To
the extent that a further description of such property may be necessary,
such description shall be provided by the Secret Service in the form of
a verbal or written notice to prospective visitors at each protective
site.


Sec. 408.3 Rules governing access.

(a) For the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1752 (84 Stat. 1891, 96 Stat.
1451), ingress or egress to or from the buildings or grounds designated in Sec. 408.2 and any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the United States Secret Service is or will be visiting is authorized only for the following persons:

(1) Invitees: Persons invited by or having appointments with the
protectee, the protectee's family, or members of the protectee's staff;
(2) Members of the protectee's family and staff;
(3) Military and Communications Personnel assigned to the Office of
the President;
(4) Federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel engaged in
the performance of their official duties and other persons, whose
presence is necessary to provide services or protection for the premises
or persons therein;
(5) Holders of grants of easement to the property, provided such
persons or their authorized representatives show title to the grant of
easement and obtain authorization from the United States Secret Service.
(b) Authorized persons must possess and display identification
documents issued by or satisfactory to the United States Secret Service.
(c) Unauthorized entry is prohibited.
(d) The term ``protectee'' as used in this rule includes the
President and any other person receiving protection from the United
States Secret Service as provided by law.


The area the accused was standing in was not a "restricted area" as defined by law inasmuch as ingress and egress to said area was allowed to the general public--including hundreds of persons carrying pro-Bush signs.

The regulations require that a visitor to a "restricted area" be given a written or verbal description of the area. (NOTICE required by the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.)

The accused was not given a written or verbal description of the "restricted area." Instead, he was ordered to go to the "free speech zone."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:05 pm
You have the patience of a saint, debra. How do you think Dewey would feel these days regarding our hopeful quest with universal education?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:34 pm
Setanta wrote:
It does not surprise me that you are having auditory halucinations. No one here has called you any names. You may not like being told that you post drivel, but it is not name-calling. This is a moderated board, and a well-moderated board at that. There are plently of places like Sunspot that you can visit to vilify others with scurrilous name-calling, and you'll have the added bonus of finding a large group of self-congratulatory conservatives there. No one minds you being here and debating. Everyone here has a stake in civility, and even if you attempt to hide behind badly spelled foreign phrases, we'll know what you're talking about, because taken all in all, this is a pretty bright group.

Why don't you ship out, if this place is so distasteful to you--either that or shape up.


No hallucinations here my friend just the truth. I wasn't referring to this thread but other threads that I have been on. I have been called a racist as well as a bigot and no one has said a thing. That is the double standard I speak of.

Are you a mod on this board? I haven't seen any mods on these boards, and no one has said they were mods. In fact most of the time when I look to see if the board is moderated I don't see anyone's name being listed as a mod. If you are one then good, please do a better job of being a mod.

So you know I wasn't hiding behind anything, I knew what I was saying I just didn't spell it right. After all this talk of free speech it is funny to see attempt to stop mine. Calling someone a bullsh*t artist isn't being vile it is calling someone by their chosen profession and calling it right. Sorry to be honest, but that is the way it is.

By the way the bolded words above are spelled wrong, I thought you might want to know seeing as how you can't spell any better then I can.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:50 pm
It is your obsession to believe that you were intentionally insulted by having it pointed out that you spelled scheister incorrectly. The spelling was not so important to me, but seeing that you had attempted to belittle Miss Law with that term, i decided to belittle you in return. Her profession is lawyer, not bullshit artist. But keep 'em coming, i hope you'll cross a line and the moderators will throw you out. No, i'm not a moderator. I know who many of them are, and i know they will smack me down just as fast as they will any of the other members. I don't intend to name any of them for you either. When one of them acts in the capacity of moderator, you will not know who it is. I've met some of these folks personally, and i know they do an excellent job of separating their participation as membes from their duties as moderators.

If someone told you what you wrote was bigoted, or that your opinions sound racist, that doesn't mean they were calling you names. There is a common expression in the cyber-world, with which i suspect you are unfamiliar, which is "attack the idea, not the person." Although you may not undertand the concept, to say that what you wrote is racist is not to say that you are a racist. We will need many more examples of racist remarks from you to come to the conclusion that you might be a racist, and those of us with sufficient sense will refrain from stating as much outright, because you are not worth getting banned from a site we enjoy. Calling Miss Law a scheister is name calling, and a violation of the terms of service. I suspect the moderators will let you slide this time, as long as no one reports your post. You need to cool off though, because you're acting like a loose cannon when you come here and claim that members of the legal profession are bullshit artists by trade.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 05:19 am
I agree, debra, that a law regarding time, place, and manner of speech MAY be so vague that it MIGHT violate the due process protections of the Constitution as amended. Now, if you agree, I would like to turn your attention to the current situation in NYC.

In your opinion, do you think the laws prescribing the protest zones in NYC are so vague and that proper notice of them has not been given to the extent that they may be unconstitutional.?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 05:56 am
Regarding the "Free Speech" zone. I am totally confused. Is there a law that applies differently to people who agree and those that dissent. People holding signs that were for Bush could stand where they would and people who disapproved had to go to an undefined "Free Speech area."
At one time America was a free country with equal laws for all. Than along came G. Bush.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 06:05 am
Larry434
Are you trying to equate 200,000 people marching, disrupting traffic and the life of the city with one man holding a sign. NY City allowed for the march in the heart of the city and they made no distinction regarding the content of the protest.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 06:09 am
au1929 wrote:
Regarding the "Free Speech" zone. I am totally confused. Is there a law that applies differently to people who agree and those that dissent. People holding signs that were for Bush could stand where they would and people who disapproved had to go to an undefined "Free Speech area."
At one time America was a free country with equal laws for all. Than along came G. Bush.


There are laws that regulate content of speech, namely obscenity laws. And there are local "time, place and manner" laws that regulate protests in that regard. But I don't know if there are any laws that specifically exclude supportive speech as to "time, place and manner.

Perhaps Ms. Law can enlighten us on that with some case cites that are on point to your question, au.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 06:17 am
Larry
The only obscenity mentioned on the sign was Bush.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 06:25 am
I wonder when our justice department will start arresting people who voice their dissent on the web or in the media. I would appear that seeds of NAZI Germany are beginning to bear fruit under this administration. If anyone is old enough to remember they changed the laws to fit the crime.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 06:27 am
I find it interesting that someone so well versed in constitutional law and with such liberal leanings as debra_law that she has time to post on A2K. She should be working for teh ACLU and they have plenty of work to go around.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 06:30 am
McGentrix wrote:
I find it interesting that someone so well versed in constitutional law and with such liberal leanings as debra_law that she has time to post on A2K. She should be working for teh ACLU and they have plenty of work to go around.


Maybe she does work for the ACLU. She certainly comes across as a civil libertarian in any case.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:04 am
McGentrix
After us comes you. At that point you may be happy that the ACLU is around to protect your civil rights. But it may be too late. We will have been engulfed by the creeping totalitarianism.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:06 am
When they come for you, let me know.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:14 am
McGentrix wrote:
I find it interesting that someone so well versed in constitutional law and with such liberal leanings as debra_law that she has time to post on A2K. She should be working for teh ACLU and they have plenty of work to go around.


McGentrix

I don't think it's appropriate for A2K members to be telling others here what they ought to be doing in their private & professional lives. That's none of our business. Better to stick to the arguments & leave the personal judgements & speculations alone.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 07:18 am
msloga, I'll take that under advisement and give it the proper attention it deserves.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 01:39 pm
well versed
McGentrix wrote:
I find it interesting that someone so well versed in constitutional law and with such liberal leanings as debra_law that she has time to post on A2K. She should be working for teh ACLU and they have plenty of work to go around.


What 'cha gonna do when they come for you, bad boy, bad boy?

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.




If being "liberal" means speaking out against the deprivation of individual rights protected by the Constitution, then I am liberal. The past is the key to the future. (History repeats itself.) I don't find it interesting--I find it disturbing that average United States citizens are not versed in the Constitution at all.

If it's acceptable today to confine or quarantine political dissent into distant barb-wired cages away from public view--what will be acceptable tomorrow or the day after? How many individual rights must be watered down and washed away into nonexistence before the significance of the loss affects everyone? Is our government the servant or the master?

If we are not vigilant, future generations will be living in a police state and be no more the wiser. So long as the government agents of the Department of Homeland Security are banging on the neighbor's door and taking those dissenters away in the middle of the night--the average person will be content to wear his blinders. Oh well, they will say, the neighbor was standing in a restricted zone holding an anti-war sign . . . he should have known better.

I urge all of you to understand and defend the Constitution -- before it's too late -- before apathy prevails.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 02:05 pm
Debra,

Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking, what kind of law do you practice?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 09:34:51