Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Opposing Views)   Did you know that the interior of the U.S. Supreme Court is a "First Amendment-free zone?" Wearing a jacket with words on it will get you arrested   (opposingviews.com) divider line 56
    More: Asinine, U.S. Supreme Court, First Amendment, U.S. Government, Occupy Wall Street movement, jackets, U.S. Department of Justice  
•       •       •

2043 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2013 at 7:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 07:03:26 AM  
If they can make zones where the constitution doesn't apply, does that mean I can make zones where some laws don't apply?  Like, my living room is a Controlled Substances Act free zone?
 
2013-03-07 07:09:51 AM  
did you know that the interior of any courtroom is a "first amendment free zone"?
 
2013-03-07 07:21:51 AM  

log_jammin: did you know that the interior of any courtroom is a "first amendment free zone"?


...Does this mean I can't cite my 21st amendment rights when my boss yells at me anymore?
 
2013-03-07 07:53:10 AM  
But it is OK to intimidate voters in Philadelphia, PA?  Got it.
 
2013-03-07 07:56:15 AM  

staplermofo: If they can make zones where the constitution doesn't apply, does that mean I can make zones where some laws don't apply?  Like, my living room is a Controlled Substances Act free zone?


I don't know about YOUR living room, but mine sure is.
 
2013-03-07 07:57:05 AM  
Sounds reasonable, you can't go into a courtroom with a trial in progress and start talking about whatever you like and disrupting the process either, so trying to disrupt it through other things such as shirts or banners is entirely reasonable to restrict as well.

/would be kinda fractal/meta to get this headline printed on a shirt and try to get into the supreme court gallery wearing it though
 
2013-03-07 07:57:43 AM  
*sigh*
 
2013-03-07 07:59:23 AM  
I guess subby never watched "The People vs. Larry Flynt."
 
2013-03-07 07:59:27 AM  
Oh boy, forum analysis time.

/yawn
 
2013-03-07 08:03:30 AM  
Why is the first amendment the only one y'all are so butthurt about?  Government buildings have been Second Amendment Free Zones for quite some time.
 
2013-03-07 08:05:36 AM  
Why, I've heard of whole trials being out of order.
 
2013-03-07 08:06:07 AM  
So the police that wear uniforms clearly identifying themselves with words printed on them are included in this ban, right... wait, where are you all going?
 
2013-03-07 08:06:34 AM  
You have the right to express yourself, but not wherever and whenever you want.
 
2013-03-07 08:07:59 AM  

serial_crusher: Why is the first amendment the only one y'all are so butthurt about?  Government buildings have been Second Amendment Free Zones for quite some time.


I'm pretty sure there is a well regulated militia run by US citizens at most Government buildings.
 
2013-03-07 08:12:40 AM  
Subby you are an idiot.

First amendment doesn't allow me to say anything I want, anywhere at any time without any repercussions.

Can I come into your house and start calling your wife a "whore" and you can't kick me out for it?
 
2013-03-07 08:13:21 AM  

serial_crusher: Why is the first amendment the only one y'all are so butthurt about?


It's probably because TFA is about the first amendment. If you want more gun threads, post  a story about a guy trying to walk into the supreme court with an AR-15. Better yet, get your constitutionally protected home defender and try to walk into the supreme court yourself so we can make fun of stories about you.

Stand up for your rights, brave patriot. I believe in you.
 
2013-03-07 08:13:40 AM  
I'm a free man.

I'm free to obey the law. I'm free to break it. I'm free to suffer the consequences.

And that's all the freedom you'll ever find in this nation.

'Justice' is similar to the above, if you want it you'll have to do it yourself and deal with the repercussions.

/Who's law Joker? Yours or mine?
 
2013-03-07 08:15:25 AM  

staplermofo: If they can make zones where the constitution doesn't apply, does that mean I can make zones where some laws don't apply?  Like, my living room is a Controlled Substances Act free zone?


you can kick people out of your house because you don't like what their jacket says just like the Supreme Court. So if you are as stupid as subby and think that is the same as restricting the first amendment then yes.
 
2013-03-07 08:17:55 AM  

Corvus: Subby you are an idiot.

First amendment doesn't allow me to say anything I want, anywhere at any time without any repercussions.

Can I come into your house and start calling your wife a "whore" and you can't kick me out for it?


To be fair, TFA is about a gray area i.e. it is in fact the government limiting political speech on public property. I can see extremists getting wound up about it but I'm willing to accept the exception because, as we've all seen, there is a small minority who do not exercise their rights responsibly. I don't think the occupy kid was a big deal but once you have a rule, you have to enforce it evenhandedly.
 
2013-03-07 08:20:26 AM  
They take your guns and knives. They don't let use your cell phone. They don't even let you talk. A local courtroom has a sign that says, "No reading the newspaper." I shiat you not. You are not free in a courtroom. Go be free outside.
 
2013-03-07 08:24:49 AM  
I see this is another case of area man passionate defender of what he imagines the Constitution to say.
 
2013-03-07 08:33:19 AM  
Idiot occupier thinks he wants freedom. The freedom to take other peoples' stuff.
 
2013-03-07 08:36:58 AM  

armoredbulldozer: But it is OK to intimidate voters in Philadelphia, PA?  Got it.


Oh dear lord, give it up already. Not a single person ever came forward claiming they were intimidated. Some college young republicans took a cell phone video of a couple black guys as people, including white people, casually walked in and out of the polling location.
 
2013-03-07 08:37:01 AM  
I learned this the last time the story went green.
 
2013-03-07 08:38:31 AM  

armoredbulldozer: But it is OK to intimidate voters in Philadelphia, PA?  Got it.


If by "intimidate" you mean "stand around outside a polling place", yes, that is still allowed.

Those men looked scary to you because they're blah.
 
2013-03-07 08:41:40 AM  
Bwah.  Someone's never been to court before.
 
2013-03-07 08:41:59 AM  
FTFA: Fitzgerald was not disturbing anybody, but was repeatedly told by court staff to leave the building or remove the coat.

FTFA: Prosecutors eventually dismissed the charges, but Scott sued.

Look, I might agree with what the guy's jacket said, but given the above, I'm not seeing the big deal here. If anything, he was given a fairer shake than he could have been. Hell, even aside from that, it's a courthouse. Or does subby think that contempt of court is also a violation of the First Amendment?
 
2013-03-07 08:42:05 AM  

badhatharry: They take your guns and knives. They don't let use your cell phone. They don't even let you talk. A local courtroom has a sign that says, "No reading the newspaper." I shiat you not. You are not free in a courtroom. Go be free outside.


It would interfere with your right to a fair trial with people shouting slogans or waving banners inside the courthouse.I think everyone respects that the interior of a courtroom is sacred ground (in the non-spiritual sense).

In the same light, it is public space. People should be free to see how the justice system works.
The best you can do is equally enforce a rule to keep protest (in all forms) outside while still allowing free access.

We shouldn't have to label it a first amendment free zone.
People should simply know better.
 
2013-03-07 09:12:30 AM  

way south: badhatharry: They take your guns and knives. They don't let use your cell phone. They don't even let you talk. A local courtroom has a sign that says, "No reading the newspaper." I shiat you not. You are not free in a courtroom. Go be free outside.

It would interfere with your right to a fair trial with people shouting slogans or waving banners inside the courthouse.I think everyone respects that the interior of a courtroom is sacred ground (in the non-spiritual sense).

In the same light, it is public space. People should be free to see how the justice system works.
The best you can do is equally enforce a rule to keep protest (in all forms) outside while still allowing free access.

We shouldn't have to label it a first amendment free zone.
People should simply know better.


I'm a little uncomfortable with the administration calling it a "first amendment free zone". That is an unusual thing to say.

I thought the no newspapers thing was absurd but maybe it is to prevent jurors from seeing headlines relating to cases.
 
2013-03-07 09:15:21 AM  
Time, place and manner, people. Say what you want, just not there. Your freedom to speak is not infringed, only your freedom to do so in ine particular spot.

Go outside and say anything you want, any way you want.
 
2013-03-07 09:17:36 AM  

way south: It would interfere with your right to a fair trial with people shouting slogans or waving banners inside the courthouse.I think everyone respects that the interior of a courtroom is sacred ground (in the non-spiritual sense).


Best point right here.

There are standards in a courtroom, and they're there for a reason.  You can't have anything espousing a political or judicial position for a good damn reason.

The guy was asked politely to change his jacket or leave.  He did neither and willfully trespassed, so he got arrested.  Sounds fair.

If the administration really did give a flat "first amendment-free zone" response, that's a little tone-deaf, but it's not entirely wrong.  There are times when our different rights come into conflict.  This is one - right to a fair trial vs. right to free speech.  I might WANT to go into a courtroom with a "hang the farker" sign, but it would be prejudicial and if I could then everyone could and it'd turn the place into a circus overnight.

/can't wait for Scalia to rule that corporations have free speech in courtrooms
 
2013-03-07 09:20:04 AM  

pootsie: Time, place and manner, people. Say what you want, just not there. Your freedom to speak is not infringed, only your freedom to do so in ine particular spot.

Go outside and say anything you want, any way you want.


As long as you're inside a Free Speech Zone!
www.infowars.com
 
2013-03-07 09:42:53 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: FTFA: Fitzgerald was not disturbing anybody, but was repeatedly told by court staff to leave the building or remove the coat.

FTFA: Prosecutors eventually dismissed the charges, but Scott sued.

Look, I might agree with what the guy's jacket said, but given the above, I'm not seeing the big deal here. If anything, he was given a fairer shake than he could have been. Hell, even aside from that, it's a courthouse. Or does subby think that contempt of court is also a violation of the First Amendment?




Yes subby is an idiot
 
2013-03-07 09:45:48 AM  
Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery
Say he must go free
(Maxwell must go free)
The judge does not agree and he tells them
So, o, o, o.
 
2013-03-07 09:46:45 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Or does subby think that contempt of court is also a violation of the First Amendment?


Is it an admiralty court with one of those gold-fringed flags?
 
2013-03-07 09:47:16 AM  
The defendant's right to a fair trial trumps your freedom to interrupt said trial.
 
2013-03-07 09:52:29 AM  

badhatharry: I'm a little uncomfortable with the administration calling it a "first amendment free zone". That is an unusual thing to say.


Yes, it would be unusual for the administration to say that. Very unusual indeed. Of course, they didn't say that, but it would have been very unusual if they did.
 
2013-03-07 10:00:50 AM  

Corvus: Subby you are an idiot.

First amendment doesn't allow me to say anything I want, anywhere at any time without any repercussions.

Can I come into your house and start calling your wife a "whore" and you can't kick me out for it?


Why would I kick you out of my house for speaking the truth?

/not subby
 
2013-03-07 10:13:58 AM  
There are free speech zones, but a permit is now required.
http://www.motherjones.com/road-trip-blog/2010/07/view-my-windshield -f ree-speech-zone
 
2013-03-07 10:31:15 AM  

Lost Thought 00: The defendant's right to a fair trial trumps your freedom to interrupt said trial.


Oh, bullshiat. Paradoxes are the government's problem, not mine. I get to sit in the gallery with a megaphone because it's my right, dammit, and now you're not giving him a fair trial! PROOF the government is a tyranny!
 
2013-03-07 10:34:52 AM  
MurphyMurphy
/Who's law Joker? Yours or mine?

Good question. Who IS law?


Fluorescent Testicle
Look, I might agree with what the guy's jacket said, but given the above, I'm not seeing the big deal here. If anything, he was given a fairer shake than he could have been. Hell, even aside from that, it's a courthouse. Or does subby think that contempt of court is also a violation of the First Amendment?

just going to refer to last year's thread
The guy clearly didn't understand that there were rules against this sort of thing. Had the cop just taken three minutes to explain it instead of doing the "Do what I tell you right now without asking questions or you will be arrested" thing, he probably would have complied. Totally unnecessary arrest, probably cost taxpayers thousands of dollars, etc
And now add to that the fact that the charges were dismissed, which you'd think should mean that it was an unjustified arrest.
 
2013-03-07 10:41:51 AM  
www.lateboots.com

Not necessarily.
 
2013-03-07 10:58:27 AM  
hmm... no one seems to have pointed out that this guy wasn't in a courtroom. he was in a building in which there is a courtroom, and an exhibit about slavery, and presumably some other things. i'm sure that he had to pass through some sort of security checkpoint to get into this building, yet he was arrested for  " "unlawful entry" as he was viewing an exhibit on slavery. " tho his entry was deemed unlawful, he was allowed to enter and didn't get any complaints about his presence there until later.

it's common knowledge that judges are kings of their courtroom and can toss you in jail for wearing clothes they don't like, but that's not what happened here.
 
2013-03-07 11:00:45 AM  
Some people in here seem to think he actually said something inside of a courtroom.
 
2013-03-07 11:13:34 AM  
A dress code?
 
2013-03-07 11:15:09 AM  

Benjamin Orr: Some people in here seem to think he actually said something inside of a courtroom.


Are you saying the printed word isn't speech and therefore not covered by freedom of speech?
 
2013-03-07 12:03:44 PM  

vygramul: Benjamin Orr: Some people in here seem to think he actually said something inside of a courtroom.

Are you saying the printed word isn't speech and therefore not covered by freedom of speech?


No, I think he's saying he wasn't in a courtroom.
 
2013-03-07 12:29:24 PM  

theknuckler_33: Oh dear lord, give it up already. Not a single person ever came forward claiming they were intimidated. Some college young republicans took a cell phone video of a couple black guys as people, including white people, casually walked in and out of the polling location.


What they didn't show, just out of camera shot, was hundreds of scared white people running in terror and they were unable to vote that day.  Obama wouldn't have won if it wasn't for this.
 
2013-03-07 12:58:36 PM  

Corvus: Subby you are an idiot.

First amendment doesn't allow me to say anything I want, anywhere at any time without any repercussions.

Can I come into your house and start calling your wife a "whore" and you can't kick me out for it?


Even if it's true?
 
2013-03-07 02:03:28 PM  
Well, the SC once found that wearing a coat that said "fark the draft" in the courtroom was protected first amendment speech, although it was more a question of the use of the word fark than a question of if any speech could be limited in the courtroom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

Then again we all know that precedent doesn't mean what it used to any more...
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report