If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   ACLU suing Florida county because it put up a free speech zone, which ACLU claims violates First Amendment rights to free speech   (theledger.com) divider line 390
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

11391 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2005 at 6:06 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



390 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-12-10 12:47:58 AM
Yes. Because the county requires people wanting to exercise "free speech" to pony up $500,000 in insurance.

That is surely a way to ensure that everybody gets heard.

That damn ACLU. Always meddling when the government knows best.
 
2005-12-10 12:49:36 AM
I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but isn't the entire United States of America supposed to be a "free-speech zone"?
 
2005-12-10 12:50:32 AM
What the hell is a free speech zone? Isn't the United States of America a free speech zone?
 
2005-12-10 12:51:03 AM
What part of "free" in "free speech" is Florida not understanding?
 
2005-12-10 12:51:18 AM
*high fives Tabatha Static*
And only 54 seconds away from a simulpost.
 
2005-12-10 12:52:05 AM
Err, I can't count...
 
2005-12-10 12:53:40 AM
As I recall, the Republicans started this "free speech zone" concept during their last convention. I could be wrong, but that is my recollection. It's sick and, I believe, would be overturned, if challenged. Bless the ACLU for looking out for us.
 
2005-12-10 12:54:18 AM
"Free speech zones" are contradictions in terms.
They're basically spaces blocked off for protestors outside events like political conventions, etc.

If you try to protest said event outside a "free speech zone", you can get hauled in by the police.
The events do it in the name of security.
 
2005-12-10 01:41:47 AM
MorrisBird: As I recall, the Republicans started this "free speech zone" concept during their last convention. I could be wrong, but that is my recollection.

I recall those things going as far back as Bush/"Potatoe" '88. I too could be wrong, however, as I was only 8 back then.
 
2005-12-10 01:43:42 AM
It's not a new idea. Just look at almost any university.
 
2005-12-10 01:49:58 AM
I'm sorry to inform the democrats in this thread that your (less evil) retarded party also employed "free speech zones" at last year's nomination convention.
 
2005-12-10 02:51:53 AM
Action Replay Nick
You win a prize! Sadly, it ain't just the RP's that're doing this shiat. And you can fight it, but by the time they let you out, whatever you're protesting is over and long gone. Pricks!
/Democrat
 
2005-12-10 03:02:14 AM
And now that this thread is going to the main page, let me say that that ACLU is friggin' awesome and any party that fences off "free speech" can suck my ass.
 
2005-12-10 03:14:58 AM
I think free speech zones try to keep order.

Threadjack hypothetical:

In my hometown the police set up a designated block for a group to stage a protest, because the city is very against the protest even taking place.

For it or against it so far?

What if I told you the group was the National Socialist Party?

It'll help keep the city in order.

[/threadjack>
 
2005-12-10 04:03:29 AM
"The organization is also challenging [...] a rule that bars displays from including pornography, obscenities or commercial speech."

So if these limits were passed, would protest materiel depicting or displaying aborted fetuses be considered obscene according to community standards? Would such protestors be dealt with in the same way as those who display obscene words?

/kindling
 
2005-12-10 04:45:21 AM
So it's cool for the gubmint to fence off protesters at a Bush rally like a mile and a half away, but I have to wade through the hysterical anti-abortion wackos just to get to my gyne appointment?

Justices of the Supreme Court, my vagina beseeches you!
 
2005-12-10 05:34:22 AM
soze:

Hahaha, like there's no hysterical anti's at a Bush rally.. get off your horse, take stick out of ass, sit, think. If people did this more often we'd have fewer problems.

That said this is a touchy issue. I doubt protesters have the "right" to cause major problems ie marching (read stomping) around harrasing people. Protests can be done right without the problems and still deliver powerful messages. At the same time roping people off to some corner defeats the purpose of the demonstration.

Ohh and if anyone wants to have a look see at hysterical wacko's check out www.zombietime.com It's slanted since all the protests covered are liberal protests but then again where are you going to find right wing demonstrations in Cali?
 
2005-12-10 05:37:11 AM
Protecting free speech and maintaining the peace is a tough balancing act. It's inevitable the authorities are going to cross the line from time to time.

Unfortunately, too many protesters think "free speech" gives them the right to be disruptive and violent. So you get these "free speech zones" to make maintaining the peace doable. Allowing the protesters to mingle freely with the people they're protesting pretty much creates a situation where it's nearly impossible to maintain the peace, and that's not acceptable. Better to keep clashing viewpoints on opposite sides of the street.

FWIW, I think this particular "free speech zone" is way over the line, but you have to wonder how much damage these people are causing if the state thinks they need to be insured for half a million.
 
2005-12-10 05:41:27 AM
ohh and for the record 500k insurance policy for a rally? That is definately bullshiat. Like we need the government making any more requirements on us, then again without lawyers it would never have been an issue.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-12-10 07:03:16 AM
That damn ACLU. Always meddling when the government knows best.

The country would be better off without the ACLU. They are suing because the were not treated better than the religious groups that they despise. Requiring insurance for use of public facilities is a routine requirement.
 
2005-12-10 07:29:33 AM
Boths sides here have attractive arguments. If a group paid for a public hall for an event and didn't have insurance, would an accident victim there sue the city? Probably. Especially if the group holding the event were penniless.

Would most people criticize the city council for not requiring insurance at such events? Probably.

My impression is that this location is not for a single guy to stand up and give his opinion. This is for large groups to demonstrate or otherwise publicly present their ideas/philosophy/theories/opinions.

What is the ACLU's objection? That the city requires insurance? Maybe the city should scale the insurance requirement to the size of the group exercising free speech.

What would satisfy the ACLU? That the city pay for any and all incidents occuring on the property? Fact is, if the ACLU didn't collect government money on many of these suits, there wouldn't be an ACLU, or at least not one with lawyers.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-12-10 07:46:01 AM
you have to wonder how much damage these people are causing if the state thinks they need to be insured for half a million.

One serious injury will eat that up and more.

The dollar figure to look at is the cost of the insurance. The county wants exhibiters to pay $100 to place an exhibit that will probably cost well over $100 in materials and labor.

In Boston, street and subway musicians have to pay $25 to exercise their right to free speech. That's for one person performing part time.
 
2005-12-10 09:29:26 AM
This is the farking Free Speech Zone:



Burn any asshole who says otherwise.
 
2005-12-10 09:33:46 AM
The First Amendment says it all:

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 providing five hundred thousand dollars insurance is first procured; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

/Can't get much clearer than that.
 
2005-12-10 09:37:04 AM
whorehopper:

So you're saying I can bring 50 protestors into your "free speech zone" living room at 2:00am every day? Cool.
 
2005-12-10 09:39:34 AM
Hey Yanks, have you ever wondered if things might have gotten out of control down there?

I mean, I don't mean to sound condescending at all, this isn't the typical Canadian passive-aggressive crap, but stuff like this is just stupid. You can't just protest?

This isn't even a partisan issue, both sides should be shaking thier heads here.
 
2005-12-10 09:41:27 AM
It's about time someone did something about "free speech zones"... free speech is not supposed to be zoned...
 
2005-12-10 09:42:24 AM
2005-12-10 09:37:04 AM 67 Beetle

whorehopper:

So you're saying I can bring 50 protestors into your "free speech zone" living room at 2:00am every day? Cool.


No, my living room isn't public property.
 
2005-12-10 09:43:19 AM
I agree with the ACLU on this one. Every square inch of the United States of America should be a free speech zone. Charging people to engage in their constitutional right is wrong and should be opposed.

The 'State of the Union Address' scene from The American President comes to mind here...



SHEPHERD
For the record: Yes, I am a card-
carrying member of the A.C.L.U. But
the more important question is why
aren't you, Bob? This is an
organization whose sole purpose is to
defend the Bill of Rights, so it
naturally begs the questions.

Why would a senator, his party's most
powerful spokesman and a candidate
for president, choose to reject
upholding the Constitution? If you
can answer that question, then,
folks, you're smarter than I am,
because I didn't understand it until
a couple of minutes ago. Everybody
knows American isn't easy. America is
advanced citizenship.

You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's
gonna put up a fight. It's gonna
say, "You want free speech? Let's
see you acknowledge a man whose words
make your blood boil, who's standing
center stage and advocating, at the
top of his lungs, that which you
would spend a lifetime opposing at the
top of yours. You want to claim
this land as the land of the free,
then the symbol of your country can't
just be a flag; the symbol also has
to be one of its citizens exercising
his right to burn that flag in
protest." Show me that, defend that,
celebrate that in your classrooms.
Then you can stand up and sing about
the land of the free.
 
2005-12-10 09:43:32 AM
ZAZ

The country would be better off without the ACLU. They are suing because the were not treated better than the religious groups that they despise. Requiring insurance for use of public facilities is a routine requirement.

Right. Of course. It has nothing to do with the American Civil Liberties Union trying to defend the civil liberties of Americans, does it?
 
2005-12-10 09:45:37 AM
whorehopper:

So you're saying I can bring 50 protestors into your "free speech zone" living room at 2:00am every day? Cool.

No, my living room isn't public property.


Darn. I just figured your house was somewhere on the nice color map you posted.
 
2005-12-10 09:48:05 AM
SineSwiper



No, my living room isn't public property.


Only until I get your local city council to eminent domain it and turn it into a pretty granite plaza. Then it's PAR-TAY at SineSwiper's place!
 
2005-12-10 09:48:32 AM
67 Beetle:

whorehopper:

So you're saying I can bring 50 protestors into your "free speech zone" living room at 2:00am every day? Cool.


You're not very good at this, are you?

In FL, if you tried to bring anything into my home at night, I could pretty much kill you outright with no worries. Private property is not public property.
 
2005-12-10 09:49:21 AM
I think most colleges have this now. It's not so people can be silenced, it's so they don't get all up in the way.

You have a right to free speech, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say whereever you damn well please. Just keeps people from tying up traffic and being a nuisance.
 
2005-12-10 09:49:34 AM
Also, the right to free speech is not the same as the right to assemble.
 
2005-12-10 09:49:52 AM
 
2005-12-10 09:49:53 AM
Sussman - I think free speech zones try to keep order. Threadjack hypothetical:

In my hometown the police set up a designated block for a group to stage a protest, because the city is very against the protest even taking place.

For it or against it so far?

What if I told you the group was the National Socialist Party?

It'll help keep the city in order.


There are so many flaws in your argument Sussman, I don't know where to start. Respectfully, I submit to you...

1. So now we'll curtail free speech in the name of 'maintaining order'? Sounds very similar to what Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Castro, Mao and every other dictator who didn't like what his people were saying.

2. The National Socialist Party, as offensive as I find them, has every RIGHT under the US Constitution to protest and engage in free speech as AARP, NRA, NEA, NOW, Vietnam Vets, Christian Coalition, WWF and every other person and organization.

3. Limiting free speech under the fear that people might react violently is wrong and flawed. You know this. It's like arresting people because they MIGHT steal or murder. Pre-emptive arrests and punishments. Is that what you want?
 
2005-12-10 09:50:09 AM
You need to have the insurance because when the cops start swinging batons and macing without discretion, someone's gonna sue.

Free speech zones are also very effective at providing for the arrest and detention of people in full knowledge that an irate judge is going to summarily throw them out. But this makes for good TV and scares even more people away from participating.
 
2005-12-10 09:51:33 AM
Sussman: I think free speech zones try to keep order.

Threadjack hypothetical:

In my hometown the police set up a designated block for a group to stage a protest, because the city is very against the protest even taking place.

For it or against it so far?

Against.

What if I told you the group was the National Socialist Party?

Against. Nazi's have the same rights to march that everyone else does. So long as they keep it peaceful and arn't attempting to start a riot, than they have the right to march. If the argument is that the Nazi's marching is inherently dangerous, than they shouldn't be given a permit to march anywhere.
 
2005-12-10 09:52:04 AM
whorehopper wins.
 
2005-12-10 09:52:19 AM
That insurance premium is about as Constitutional as a voting tax.
 
2005-12-10 09:54:36 AM
That's so they can regulate free speech anywhere else,

plus the neo-nazi's need somewhere else to spew their paranoia besides the comfort of the their own homes.

/Many Floridians get "robes" instead of Bar/Bat Mitzvahs...
 
2005-12-10 09:56:36 AM
AcidicDreams

. . .get off your horse, take stick out of ass, sit, think. If people did this more often we'd have fewer problems.


Calm polite discussion would help us have fewer problems too. Don't you think? For a person advising someone else to think, the above seems very thoughtless.
 
2005-12-10 10:01:15 AM
Sussman [TotalFark]
I think free speech zones try to keep order.
Threadjack hypothetical:
In my hometown the police set up a designated block for a group to stage a protest, because the city is very against the protest even taking place.
For it or against it so far?
What if I told you the group was the National Socialist Party?

"I hate Illinois Nazis"
 
2005-12-10 10:01:30 AM
Even the words "Free Speech Zone" should indicate to anyone that something screwwy is going on. Any time you see doublespeak like that coming from the government, we are in deep sh*t.

Some guys in uniforms set up a border and call one side of the border a "free speech zone". What should the other side of the border be called?
 
2005-12-10 10:01:43 AM
OOOhhh! Now there's a place in America I can say what I want! What a Country!
 
2005-12-10 10:01:43 AM
The neo-nazi rally analogy is false as the zone is set up to protect the nazis from an angry mob, and ensure their right to free speech, not to put them out of the way.

Free speech zones are established to protect the elites from having to hear the protest, minimizing its effect and in direct contravention to the rationale of the founders for protecting speech.
 
2005-12-10 10:02:52 AM
The whole idea of Free Speech Zones was tried once in this country already. We rejected it.

 
2005-12-10 10:06:57 AM
Whorehopper

You know the Boston Massacre was actually not as bad as depicted in the famous cartoon that you are showing. Historians have acknowledged for a long time that there was neither a massacre nor was it started by the British Soldiers.

The presence of British troops in Boston had long been a sore point among Boston's radical politicians. Paul Revere wasted no time in capitalizing on the "Massacre" to highlight British tyranny and stir up anti-British sentiment among his fellow colonists.

Revere's historic engraving is long on political propaganda and short on accuracy or aesthetics.
 
2005-12-10 10:07:21 AM
I like the part that also requires you file for use of the "free speech zone" 3 weeks in advance. I'm sure there's no way that would be abused either.
 
Displayed 50 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report