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.

(The Newspaper)   "I asked him if he had a permit to protest the red light cameras, and he said no"   (thenewspaper.com) divider line 117
    More: Florida, red light cameras, East Main Street, selective enforcement, free speech zone, Apopka, roofing  
•       •       •

8056 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Sep 2013 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



117 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-16 01:12:19 PM  
Since when does a single person need a permit to protest?
 
2013-09-16 01:27:25 PM  
Permit?  Doesn't the First Amendment cover that?  The right to peacefully assemble?  I know that stuff is never as simple as it seems, though.
 
2013-09-16 01:32:24 PM  
"Other protestors across the street began heckling me for making a bad arrest," Officer Campbell wrote. "This information was added to show the demeanor of the group the arrested male was with."

Oh, whaaaah.
 
2013-09-16 01:33:12 PM  
He is the same guy that was arrested for speaking and handing out leaflets outside of the 'designated free speech zones' at the tot mom trial. He was convicted of that, and a state Appeals Court said Free Speech Zones are bullshiat and Judge Belvin Perry couldn't set them up.

He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.
 
2013-09-16 01:45:27 PM  
"It's selective enforcement, and that alone is unconstitutional," Schmidter said. "The homeless are in the street asking for money, and firefighters do it, too.

Yeah, I was wondering about this. If he can show panhandlers or fundraisers do the same thing in his town without being hassled, the city better break out its checkbook.
 
2013-09-16 01:53:09 PM  
"Once traffic came to a stop, he would walk in between cars"

Maybe that was the bigger issue.
 
2013-09-16 02:05:17 PM  

netizencain: "Once traffic came to a stop, he would walk in between cars"

Maybe that was the bigger issue.


I don't know what the deal is where he lives, but here in New Orleans homeless panhandlers and fundraisers (often children) do this all the time unmolested. It bugs the fark out of me, especially the kids, for obvious reasons.

But anyway, if this guy is correct that he was selectively targeted, its time for the city to sack up and pay the man.
 
2013-09-16 02:07:48 PM  

feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.


Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?
 
2013-09-16 02:10:24 PM  

scottydoesntknow: feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.

Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?


Yep, so Perry said it was jury tampering. Mr.Schmidter and his attorney disagree. I agree with them, but the tot mom thing was a fiasco anyway.
 
2013-09-16 02:43:48 PM  
"It's selective enforcement, and that alone is unconstitutional," Schmidter said. "The homeless are in the street asking for money, and firefighters do it, too. We don't raise money, we let people know about the red light cameras."

Where's the farking hero tag?
 
2013-09-16 02:47:50 PM  
"designated free speech zone"

Most offensive part of the story.
 
2013-09-16 02:48:13 PM  
He must be a mooslum
 
2013-09-16 02:49:16 PM  

scottydoesntknow: feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.

Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?


Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.
 
2013-09-16 02:49:33 PM  
I wish I had the time to dedicate my life to being a complete jackass pain in the ass for some petty cause.

Unfortunately, I already HAVE a life...
 
2013-09-16 02:50:08 PM  
I don't know why you guys think this guy should just be able to hand out flyers and speak out against the government's actions.
 
2013-09-16 02:51:39 PM  
I can't get in trouble for linking to a Facebook fan page for the guy, can I?  Hope not.

https://www.facebook.com/WeAreMarkSchmidter

On my way to donate what I can; likely $20
 
2013-09-16 02:52:01 PM  

gaslight: Since when does a single person need a permit to protest?


I'm sure the ACLU is all over preparing his defense.

/hello?
 
2013-09-16 02:52:18 PM  

gilgigamesh: netizencain: "Once traffic came to a stop, he would walk in between cars"

Maybe that was the bigger issue.

I don't know what the deal is where he lives, but here in New Orleans homeless panhandlers and fundraisers (often children) do this all the time unmolested. It bugs the fark out of me, especially the kids, for obvious reasons.

But anyway, if this guy is correct that he was selectively targeted, its time for the city to sack up and pay the man.



There's a Chris Hansen joke in here somewhere.
 
2013-09-16 02:52:41 PM  

rjakobi: scottydoesntknow: feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.

Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?

Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.


Can you be any more wrong in your observations? I suppose you think all of your elementary school teachers were attention whores as well.
 
2013-09-16 02:54:03 PM  

rjakobi: scottydoesntknow: feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.

Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?

Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.


Or, you know, maybe he wants to inform people of their rights, as is his right. But yeah, your uninformed opinion is probably right.
 
2013-09-16 02:54:33 PM  

rjakobi: Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.


That's what was said about those uppity folks in the south that used to do peaceful sit-ins.
 
2013-09-16 02:54:49 PM  
Kudos to this guy for actually doing something about it.  I'm guessing he has a better chance of success than all the angry internet message board comments put together.
 
2013-09-16 02:54:51 PM  

gilgigamesh: "It's selective enforcement, and that alone is unconstitutional," Schmidter said. "The homeless are in the street asking for money, and firefighters do it, too.

Yeah, I was wondering about this. If he can show panhandlers or fundraisers do the same thing in his town without being hassled, the city better break out its checkbook.


I would be willing to bet that at least the Firefighters have permits for EVERYTHING.  As a group, those guys tend to be pretty plugged into local government, have friends everywhere, and have a tendency to think in terms of legality and authorizations.  When they do stuff, it's usually super-legal.

Other groups might not be, though.  And since he's lawyered up already, some quick checking might be in order.
 
2013-09-16 02:55:36 PM  

rjakobi: scottydoesntknow: feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.

Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?

Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.


abfalter: I wish I had the time to dedicate my life to being a complete jackass pain in the ass for some petty cause.

Unfortunately, I already HAVE a life...


That's not how free speech works.  If you can mandate who can have it based on how much of a pain in the ass they are, then we've already lost the Right.
 
2013-09-16 02:55:37 PM  

gilgigamesh: netizencain: "Once traffic came to a stop, he would walk in between cars"

Maybe that was the bigger issue.

I don't know what the deal is where he lives, but here in New Orleans homeless panhandlers and fundraisers (often children) do this all the time unmolested. It bugs the fark out of me, especially the kids, for obvious reasons.


Firefighters with boots, homeless with signs, whatever - they're all over the streets in my town, and not one of them seems afraid of being run over. It especially bothers me to see them on the skinny little medians - just one texter or old person can take 'em out. (And should.)
 
2013-09-16 02:56:30 PM  
i remember this happening in phoenix a long time ago.  a guy put up a huge sign saying "speed trap ahead", which was true, and the cops arrested him for disorderly conduct or some shiat.  his whole thing was basically, i'm on a sidewalk holding a sign, you can't arrest me.

not sure how it ended but it was a kinda big story a long time ago.

/this was also about the time a pregnant lady in phoenix got arrested for violating the HOV lane.  she argued her unborn fetus was a "second person" as contemplated by the law.  natrually, the right to lifers jumped on her case.  she lost at trial though.  she testified on her behalf but lost the case when she was asked, "when you go to the movies, do you buy a second ticket?  when you go to a buffet, do you buy two plates?"
 
2013-09-16 02:58:45 PM  

A Non Amos: How is this even constitutional?


Because Fark You citizen that's why
 
2013-09-16 02:59:08 PM  

mama2tnt: Firefighters with boots, homeless with signs, whatever - they're all over the streets in my town, and not one of them seems afraid of being run over. It especially bothers me to see them on the skinny little medians - just one texter or old person can take 'em out. (And should.)


The panhandlers are already illegal.  It's just a matter of how many of them the city wishes to lock up at a given time.
 
2013-09-16 02:59:17 PM  
FTFA: "Schmidter was jailed for handing out flyers on the courthouse steps outside of a designated free speech zone."

What a "Free Speech Zone" might look like:

www.horseshoesonline.com
 
2013-09-16 02:59:21 PM  

abfalter: I wish I had the time to dedicate my life to being a complete jackass pain in the ass for some petty cause.

Unfortunately, I already HAVE a life... I'm too busy being a douche on Fark


Fixed to reflect reality.
 
2013-09-16 02:59:53 PM  
Constitution derp derp. Fail.

/land of the free
// THANKS OBAMA
etc...
 
2013-09-16 03:01:24 PM  
I was under the impression that requiring citizens to be properly registered/licensed before they be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights was called "common sense".
 
2013-09-16 03:03:16 PM  
You all make jokes, but I'm glad this guy was arrested. He should have been tazed.  Clearly he was presenting a traffic hazard, not to mention trying to steal from the citizens of the county by opposing lawful traffic light cameras.

I only wish he had decided to resist arrest so he could have been shot while escaping.  Bastard.

Nah, just farking with you. The cop's a douche.
 
2013-09-16 03:04:11 PM  
I like how a cop can charge you with pretty much anything for doing anything if you so much as not respect him.

I do like the part where an old judge actually interrupted his own meal to walk outside and tell the officers that this guy should not be messed with and that he won't just submit to their authoratiah!
 
2013-09-16 03:05:10 PM  

moefuggenbrew: I do like the part where an old judge actually interrupted his own meal to walk outside and tell the officers that this guy should not be messed with and that he won't just submit to their authoratiah!


Yea, when a farking judge walks out and tells you that, you should probably listen to him.
 
2013-09-16 03:06:00 PM  

Gig103: rjakobi: Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.

That's what was said about those uppity folks in the south that used to do peaceful sit-ins.


I used to ride in the back of the bus with black people, when that was a thing.
 
2013-09-16 03:06:28 PM  

netizencain: "Once traffic came to a stop, he would walk in between cars"

Maybe that was the bigger issue.


The bigger issue is $$.  If he is successful, the City will need to find new ways to extort increase tax revenues.
 
2013-09-16 03:06:44 PM  

GoldSpider: I was under the impression that requiring citizens to be properly registered/licensed before they be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights was called "common sense".


you think it's common sense for this guy to have to get a permit to handout flyers?
 
2013-09-16 03:08:57 PM  
Maybe the cop was reassigned away from the trailer park and found it difficult to fill his caucasian arrest quota.
 
2013-09-16 03:10:06 PM  
This guy.

I like him.
 
2013-09-16 03:10:33 PM  

rickythepenguin: /this was also about the time a pregnant lady in phoenix got arrested for violating the HOV lane. she argued her unborn fetus was a "second person" as contemplated by the law. natrually, the right to lifers jumped on her case. she lost at trial though. she testified on her behalf but lost the case when she was asked, "when you go to the movies, do you buy a second ticket? when you go to a buffet, do you buy two plates?"


Arizona is a "stand your ground" state, right? If you shoot her in self-defense and kill the fetus, is it still self-defense? What if she's Mexican? The permutations are fascinating.
 
2013-09-16 03:11:15 PM  
Selective enforcement at best, knowingly trying to suppress free speech much more likely. When these private stoplight camera companies approach city councils and commissioners, they KNOW they would NEVER get approval if the matter was left up to voters. Instead their tactic has always been to bribe and schmooze local politicians with the promise of yet another stream of revenues to separate citizens from their money.  This is EXACTLY the kind of shiat that these politicians HATE. Informing the public that they can make the cameras go away is REALLY frowned upon. Most all voters are lazy and unwilling to get involved. When somebody is willing to put out the effort and fight city hall, don't expect city hall to just roll over. I fought a law in Destin Florida that would have placed Waste Management Garbage services on the municipal tax rolls by means of an ad valorem tax. I had to go door to door to collect signatures and get the matter placed on the ballot. Waste Management hired a county commissioner as their 'political liaison' for a salary of over $100K per year to attempt this same tactic in several local cities. They also invited city council members and their families to their Orlando Recycling Center. (In other words, FREE vacation to Disneyworld for a week). They also hosted huge expensive parties and luncheons where council members were given invites.  I received no help from the press and had to jump through hoops to overcome the  mountain of red tape the council placed in my way. I had to threaten subpoena to get access to emails and private meetings between city manager and Waste Management employees. Two other companies offered lower contract proposals to city, but were never even considered for garbage service. This is EXACTLY the same shiat that ALEC and Chambers of Commerce pull each and every day. Then they get Barney Fife to arrest the people working to make a difference to changing the status quo. Sitting around protesting does nothing to elicit change. Getting off your ass and keeping these politicians in check is what foils their evil rat-bastard schemes. I won on the tax matter. I can also assure you I intend to make sure council looks at all proposals for waste collection instead of awarding no-bid contracts to Waste Management once their 5 year contract expires in 4 more years as well.
 
2013-09-16 03:12:06 PM  

Dahnkster: Selective enforcement at best, knowingly trying to suppress free speech much more likely. When these private stoplight camera companies approach city councils and commissioners, they KNOW they would NEVER get approval if the matter was left up to voters. Instead their tactic has always been to bribe and schmooze local politicians with the promise of yet another stream of revenues to separate citizens from their money.  This is EXACTLY the kind of shiat that these politicians HATE. Informing the public that they can make the cameras go away is REALLY frowned upon. Most all voters are lazy and unwilling to get involved. When somebody is willing to put out the effort and fight city hall, don't expect city hall to just roll over. I fought a law in Destin Florida that would have placed Waste Management Garbage services on the municipal tax rolls by means of an ad valorem tax. I had to go door to door to collect signatures and get the matter placed on the ballot. Waste Management hired a county commissioner as their 'political liaison' for a salary of over $100K per year to attempt this same tactic in several local cities. They also invited city council members and their families to their Orlando Recycling Center. (In other words, FREE vacation to Disneyworld for a week). They also hosted huge expensive parties and luncheons where council members were given invites.  I received no help from the press and had to jump through hoops to overcome the  mountain of red tape the council placed in my way. I had to threaten subpoena to get access to emails and private meetings between city manager and Waste Management employees. Two other companies offered lower contract proposals to city, but were never even considered for garbage service. This is EXACTLY the same shiat that ALEC and Chambers of Commerce pull each and every day. Then they get Barney Fife to arrest the people working to make a difference to changing the status quo. Sitting around protesting does nothing to elicit c ...


blogs.smithsonianmag.com
 
2013-09-16 03:13:26 PM  

fireclown: mama2tnt: Firefighters with boots, homeless with signs, whatever - they're all over the streets in my town, and not one of them seems afraid of being run over. It especially bothers me to see them on the skinny little medians - just one texter or old person can take 'em out. (And should.)

The panhandlers are already illegal.  It's just a matter of how many of them the city wishes to lock up at a given time.


No, they're legal here. Was a big court battle won by a POS who carries more cash in his supposedly vagrant pockets than my house is worth. Figure they'll stay legal until someone gets killed, which I'm beginning to be all for.
 
2013-09-16 03:17:57 PM  
keithandthemovies.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-16 03:19:15 PM  
6dilly4dally.com
...and I'll look down and whisper "No."
 
2013-09-16 03:25:14 PM  

rjakobi: Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.


You know who else were attention whores?

wsmith769.edublogs.org

0.static.wix.com

www.history.com

/last guy blogged about it
 
2013-09-16 03:25:51 PM  

numbone: Maybe the cop was reassigned away from the trailer park and found it difficult to fill his caucasian arrest quota.


I don't think that's too hard in FLA.
 
2013-09-16 03:28:52 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: "designated free speech zone"

Most offensive part of the story.


There aren't words in any language I'm fluent in sufficient to convey my hatred and disgust of that practice.
 
2013-09-16 03:30:54 PM  
Unless he was breaking the law he didn'tneed a permit.

Handing out things at a red light deosn't seem to break any laws.
 
2013-09-16 03:33:09 PM  
He recognized Schmidter from a previous incident where Schmidter was jailed for handing out flyers on the courthouse steps outside of a designated free speech zone.

How the flying fark can a public courthouse legally have a "designated free speech zone"?
 
2013-09-16 03:34:57 PM  
Pfft....presidents...such attention whores.
 
2013-09-16 03:35:46 PM  

liam76: Unless he was breaking the law he didn'tneed a permit.

Handing out things at a red light deosn't seem to break any laws.


Little by little it's becoming unlawful to question or oppose "the powers that be".

/or "your betters" as they like to think of themselves
 
2013-09-16 03:36:13 PM  

patrick767: How the flying fark can a public courthouse legally have a "designated free speech zone"?


A courthouse might be the only place where that makes sense.  Signs and whatnot within X feet of a trial might be considered to be interfering with the trial.  I'm thinking that it might be similar to electioneering laws that prohibit political signs and speeches within 100 M of a polling station.

None of this applies to an intersection, however.  This is simply a case of cop outrage.
 
2013-09-16 03:36:50 PM  
Also, it might just be worth it to jump through the hoop just to get a permit.
 
2013-09-16 03:37:24 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: liam76: Unless he was breaking the law he didn'tneed a permit.

Handing out things at a red light deosn't seem to break any laws.

Little by little it's becoming unlawful to question or oppose "the powers that be".

/or "your betters" as they like to think of themselves


The Matrix was a prophecy.
 
2013-09-16 03:39:09 PM  
Someone needs to charge that policeman with being a no account Nazi dickhead.
 
2013-09-16 03:40:33 PM  

GoldSpider: I was under the impression that requiring citizens to be properly registered/licensed before they be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights was called "common sense".


Stop quoting our new hero Vladimir Putin.
 
2013-09-16 03:43:30 PM  

jaylectricity: Agent Smiths Laugh: liam76: Unless he was breaking the law he didn'tneed a permit.

Handing out things at a red light deosn't seem to break any laws.

Little by little it's becoming unlawful to question or oppose "the powers that be".

/or "your betters" as they like to think of themselves

The Matrix was a prophecy.


Dunno about that, but I'm not going to be surprised if this looms in the U.S. future.
 
2013-09-16 03:47:27 PM  
We become more and more of a police state every day.
 
2013-09-16 03:47:42 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: "designated free speech zone"

Most offensive part of the story.


So much this.

I understand that they probably have a place for people to soap box a bit that allows them to be heard without being really in peoples' way.  It is probably an OK idea, but that is the worst farking name I could imagine for that.
 
2013-09-16 03:51:23 PM  

scottydoesntknow: feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.

Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?


My favorite Depression Era story that is probably fake:  Poor guy is starving and steals a rich guy's cow.  Makes it to trail.  Jury comes up with:  Not Guilty, but he has to give the cow back.

Judge calls bullshiat, and tells them they can't do that.  Jury goes back to delibs.  Jury comes up with with:  Not Guilty, and he can keep the cow.
 
2013-09-16 03:53:24 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: "designated free speech zone"

Most offensive part of the story.


Plus infinity.
 
2013-09-16 03:54:04 PM  

dpaul007: FTFA: "Schmidter was jailed for handing out flyers on the courthouse steps outside of a designated free speech zone."

What a "Free Speech Zone" might look like:

[www.horseshoesonline.com image 512x330]


Unrelated map fail... Tennessee and Missouri border, but are in the same color on your map, creating a new state of Tennesouri.
 
2013-09-16 03:54:06 PM  
My favorite part was that the judge at the trial recognized him from his prior appeals and told the cop "that's the last guy you want to mess with".

See you in court, suckas!
 
2013-09-16 03:54:24 PM  

NutWrench: "Other protestors across the street began heckling me for making a bad arrest," Officer Campbell wrote. "This information was added to show the demeanor of the group the arrested male was with."

Oh, whaaaah.


OK he was "with" a group that was "across the street"?????
 
2013-09-16 03:58:20 PM  

Coconice: scottydoesntknow: feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.

Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?

My favorite Depression Era story that is probably fake:  Poor guy is starving and steals a rich guy's cow.  Makes it to trail.  Jury comes up with:  Not Guilty, but he has to give the cow back.

Judge calls bullshiat, and tells them they can't do that.  Jury goes back to delibs.  Jury comes up with with:  Not Guilty, and he can keep the cow.


Almost definitely fake, yeah.  Great story, though, I've got to remember that one.

fireclown: patrick767: How the flying fark can a public courthouse legally have a "designated free speech zone"?

A courthouse might be the only place where that makes sense.  Signs and whatnot within X feet of a trial might be considered to be interfering with the trial.  I'm thinking that it might be similar to electioneering laws that prohibit political signs and speeches within 100 M of a polling station.

None of this applies to an intersection, however.  This is simply a case of cop outrage.


There are also issues of harassment, impediment to vehicle/pedestrian traffic, etc.  Campus I went to undergrad on was frequently visited by street preachers, real Westboro types.  They would actually follow people around from time to time, such as "sinfully dressed" women, yelling and insulting them all the while.  It got so bad, the school set up a "free speech zone" so they'd at least have to stay in one place.  Obviously that wasn't the issue here, but there are legitimate standards that can be used.

/I know, I know, CSB.
 
2013-09-16 04:02:53 PM  

SDRR: [keithandthemovies.files.wordpress.com image 500x339]


That minkey might be herpes infected though..
 
2013-09-16 04:10:12 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: jaylectricity: Agent Smiths Laugh: liam76: Unless he was breaking the law he didn'tneed a permit.

Handing out things at a red light deosn't seem to break any laws.

Little by little it's becoming unlawful to question or oppose "the powers that be".

/or "your betters" as they like to think of themselves

The Matrix was a prophecy.

Dunno about that, but I'm not going to be surprised if this looms in the U.S. future.


Well shiat, kid...your screen name is a reference to the Matrix. What else do you expect from me?
 
2013-09-16 04:11:21 PM  

Headso: you think it's common sense for this guy to have to get a permit to handout flyers?


If it's reasonable to require people to get permission to exercise other rights, why not?
 
2013-09-16 04:11:59 PM  

Last Man on Earth: There are also issues of harassment, impediment to vehicle/pedestrian traffic, etc. Campus I went to undergrad on was frequently visited by street preachers, real Westboro types. They would actually follow people around from time to time, such as "sinfully dressed" women, yelling and insulting them all the while. It got so bad, the school set up a "free speech zone" so they'd at least have to stay in one place. Obviously that wasn't the issue here, but there are legitimate standards that can be used.


Thing is, there's already policies to handle all of those.  Speeding will get you a ticket; this is fairly reasonable.  Impounding every car in the country to make sure people won't speed on the other hand...
 
2013-09-16 04:19:28 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: rjakobi: scottydoesntknow: feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.

Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?

Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.

abfalter: I wish I had the time to dedicate my life to being a complete jackass pain in the ass for some petty cause.

Unfortunately, I already HAVE a life...

That's not how free speech works.  If you can mandate who can have it based on how much of a pain in the ass they are, then we've already lost the Right.


No, it is exactly how free speech works.

I did not say that he had NO RIGHT to do this.  I am saying he is an IDIOT for doing so.
 
2013-09-16 04:22:10 PM  

A Non Amos: How is this even constitutional?


www.supershadow.org
"I will make it constitutional."
 
2013-09-16 04:23:48 PM  

abfalter: I did not say that he had NO RIGHT to do this. I am saying he is an IDIOT for doing so.


The security of this nation depends on complete and total compliance.
 
2013-09-16 04:24:00 PM  

Honest Bender: Permit?  Doesn't the First Amendment cover that?  The right to peacefully assemble?  I know that stuff is never as simple as it seems, though.


No, it's pretty simple. It means people have the right to peacefully assemble and protest the government. The people at the founding of the country were worried that the government would attempt to obstruct this right. They made them put it in writing and add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. TJ and Co. thought this was redundant and unnecessary but it made the common folk happy.
 
2013-09-16 04:25:04 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: rjakobi: Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.

You know who else were attention whores?

[wsmith769.edublogs.org image 250x351]

[0.static.wix.com image 655x512]

[www.history.com image 605x412]

/last guy blogged about it


Let us not forget some other great A.W.'s who were pesky troublemakers:
Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin; just to name a few.
Upstarts, I say. Upstarts, the lot of them.
 
2013-09-16 04:30:48 PM  

GoldSpider: Headso: you think it's common sense for this guy to have to get a permit to handout flyers?

If it's reasonable to require people to get permission to exercise other rights, why not?


I was just down at town hall getting a permit to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why can't everybody get one?!?!
 
2013-09-16 04:32:42 PM  

Last Man on Earth: Coconice: scottydoesntknow: feckingmorons: He was also convicted of jury tampering as he was giving stuff to jurors, but that is still on appeal.

Wait, is that the guy who was handing out leaflets informing potential jurors about jury nullification?

My favorite Depression Era story that is probably fake:  Poor guy is starving and steals a rich guy's cow.  Makes it to trail.  Jury comes up with:  Not Guilty, but he has to give the cow back.

Judge calls bullshiat, and tells them they can't do that.  Jury goes back to delibs.  Jury comes up with with:  Not Guilty, and he can keep the cow.

Almost definitely fake, yeah.  Great story, though, I've got to remember that one.

fireclown: patrick767: How the flying fark can a public courthouse legally have a "designated free speech zone"?

A courthouse might be the only place where that makes sense.  Signs and whatnot within X feet of a trial might be considered to be interfering with the trial.  I'm thinking that it might be similar to electioneering laws that prohibit political signs and speeches within 100 M of a polling station.

None of this applies to an intersection, however.  This is simply a case of cop outrage.

There are also issues of harassment, impediment to vehicle/pedestrian traffic, etc.  Campus I went to undergrad on was frequently visited by street preachers, real Westboro types.  They would actually follow people around from time to time, such as "sinfully dressed" women, yelling and insulting them all the while.  It got so bad, the school set up a "free speech zone" so they'd at least have to stay in one place.  Obviously that wasn't the issue here, but there are legitimate standards that can be used.

/I know, I know, CSB.


The " sinfully " dressed women part is a CSB. Dunno about the rest.
 
2013-09-16 04:36:29 PM  
GOD dammit! You're right. I should go back.
 
2013-09-16 04:51:01 PM  

jaylectricity: The Matrix was a prophecy.


Where it's OK to assault a battery.
 
2013-09-16 04:53:28 PM  

Coconice: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: "designated free speech zone"

Most offensive part of the story.

So much this.

I understand that they probably have a place for people to soap box a bit that allows them to be heard without being really in peoples' way.  It is probably an OK idea, but that is the worst farking name I could imagine for that.


Wait, you agree with the statement and then said the exact opposite.  It sounds like the only issue you have is with the name?  Do you really not see how offensive it is to corral free speech into a designated area "without being really in peoples' way"?  Have you ever SEEN a so-called "free speech zone"?  It's almost always a tiny little fenced-off area way at the back of the venue or, more often, blocks away from the event.  They are so far "out of peoples' way" that their message cannot be heard at all.  The last one I encountered was on public land at a National Park.  It was a 20'x20' square made of chain-link fence and it was not visible or within earshot of any of the common areas (parking lot, restrooms, ranger station, etc.)   There was a tiny placard near the ranger station directing people to it.  It made me want to vomit.
 
2013-09-16 04:54:35 PM  
During the commotion, a man came out of Chuck's Wagon restaurant and identified himself as a former county judge to one of the other officers on the scene. He recognized Schmidter from a previous incident where Schmidter was jailed for handing out flyers on the courthouse steps outside of a designated free speech zone.

"That's the last person you need to mess with," the judge warned.


The dumbass quotient just tripled for the cop. On top of this his cause just got enough publicity to almost guarantee a referendum by by red light cameras.
 
2013-09-16 04:56:24 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Coconice: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: "designated free speech zone"

Most offensive part of the story.

So much this.

I understand that they probably have a place for people to soap box a bit that allows them to be heard without being really in peoples' way.  It is probably an OK idea, but that is the worst farking name I could imagine for that.

Wait, you agree with the statement and then said the exact opposite.  It sounds like the only issue you have is with the name?  Do you really not see how offensive it is to corral free speech into a designated area "without being really in peoples' way"?  Have you ever SEEN a so-called "free speech zone"?  It's almost always a tiny little fenced-off area way at the back of the venue or, more often, blocks away from the event.  They are so far "out of peoples' way" that their message cannot be heard at all.  The last one I encountered was on public land at a National Park.  It was a 20'x20' square made of chain-link fence and it was not visible or within earshot of any of the common areas (parking lot, restrooms, ranger station, etc.)   There was a tiny placard near the ranger station directing people to it.  It made me want to vomit.


Like a bunch of sheep in a pen. Idiots.
 
2013-09-16 04:59:21 PM  

Last Man on Earth
There are also issues of harassment, impediment to vehicle/pedestrian traffic, etc.  Campus I went to undergrad on was frequently visited by street preachers, real Westboro types.  They would actually follow people around from time to time, such as "sinfully dressed" women, yelling and insulting them all the while.  It got so bad, the school set up a "free speech zone" so they'd at least have to stay in one place.  Obviously that wasn't the issue here, but there are legitimate standards that can be used.

Then harassment of some kind might apply, but free speech zones on campus are bullshiat too. My university set one like that up as well. We had the usual assortment of crazy preachers before and after the designation of a "free speech zone".

fireclown: patrick767: How the flying fark can a public courthouse legally have a "designated free speech zone"?

A courthouse might be the only place where that makes sense.  Signs and whatnot within X feet of a trial might be considered to be interfering with the trial.  I'm thinking that it might be similar to electioneering laws that prohibit political signs and speeches within 100 M of a polling station.

None of this applies to an intersection, however.  This is simply a case of cop outrage.


I should have specified that this was outside the courthouse. I can see it making more inside.
 
2013-09-16 05:03:38 PM  
Redflex has cameras around where I live. We never got to vote, and have never been presented with an opportunity to object.

Ironically, one got hit by a car a while back. If it wasn't there, there wouldn't have even been an accident!

My thought is: these cameras do not have air conditioning. The components in them are rated typically to 85 degrees C. If the enclosure has ever persistently been above that (like in our Texas summers) how can Redflex or the police certify the equipment is still within spec?
 
2013-09-16 05:04:11 PM  

Last Man on Earth: They would actually follow people around from time to time, such as "sinfully dressed" women, yelling and insulting them all the while.  It got so bad, the school set up a "free speech zone" so they'd at least have to stay in one place.  Obviously that wasn't the issue here, but there are legitimate standards that can be used.


There are standards and it's reckless to imply there are not. Behavior like you describe is clearly undesirable, and if it is ongoing it is probably illegal. But harassment requires systematic and/or continuing actions against a specific target before the behavior becomes illegal, and that standard exists specifically to avoid the use of anti-harassament laws in prosecuting protestors.
 
2013-09-16 05:11:41 PM  

WelldeadLink: jaylectricity: The Matrix was a prophecy.

Where it's OK to assault a battery.


I didn't even get the joke at first, I just loved the play on words! [funny]
 
2013-09-16 05:14:45 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Coconice: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: "designated free speech zone"

Most offensive part of the story.

So much this.

I understand that they probably have a place for people to soap box a bit that allows them to be heard without being really in peoples' way.  It is probably an OK idea, but that is the worst farking name I could imagine for that.

Wait, you agree with the statement and then said the exact opposite.  It sounds like the only issue you have is with the name?  Do you really not see how offensive it is to corral free speech into a designated area "without being really in peoples' way"?  Have you ever SEEN a so-called "free speech zone"?It's almost always a tiny little fenced-off area way at the back of the venue or, more often, blocks away from the event.  They are so far "out of peoples' way" that their message cannot be heard at all.  The last one I encountered was on public land at a National Park.  It was a 20'x20' square made of chain-link fence and it was not visible or within earshot of any of the common areas (parking lot, restrooms, ranger station, etc.)   There was a tiny placard near the ranger station directing people to it.  It made me want to vomit.


No, I have not seen this or any other "free speech zone."

Being so far away that peoples' messages cannot be heard would violate my very limited support for such a thing.

My only support for this type of thing comes from the fact that I feel that my right to travel through an area unmolested is no less important than the right of protestors to be heard.
 
2013-09-16 05:34:53 PM  
Coconice:
Being so far away that peoples' messages cannot be heard would violate my very limited support for such a thing.

My only support for this type of thing comes from the fact that I feel that my right to travel through an area unmolested is no less important than the right of protestors to be heard.


That they exist at all should be an affront to any American.  The very idea that you can only say what's on your mind when you are in a spot designated by a duly-authorized government employee is detestable.  As for your right to travel, we already have laws regarding personal harassment, assault and battery, and so forth.  We should be using those, when appropriate.  However, I might also suggest that inconveniencing you as you go about your business may be precisely why it's so important.  Can you imagine if the 1963 civil rights march on Washington (for example) was not allowed to proceed because it "impeded traffic" or some other nonsense?

Consider this article regarding the G8 summit in 2012.  In this case, the "free speech zone" was over a mile away from the summit.  Far enough away so that our royalty don't have to be bothered by the unwashed peasants.

If selected as the so-called designated protest area during the G8/NATO summits in Chicago in May, many protest leaders said they will not be going there.
"It is frankly insulting. The point of our protest is the G8 and NATO and not some be sodden field in the south end of Grant Park," Andy Thayer, protest organizer, said.

"When the government that we are questioning, challenging, designates where and how and to whom we can bring that message, then it is, by definition, no longer free speech," Jay Becker, protest organizer, said.


By relegating protesters to a FSZ away from the event, the government therefore effectively destroyed any planned demonstration during the summit.

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.
 
2013-09-16 05:42:05 PM  
You must file your request for a Free Speech permit three weeks prior to your scheduled protest. Remember staying from your designated Free Speech Zone may result in arrest.

Please enjoy the safe and sane exercising of your Constitution Rights!
 
2013-09-16 05:45:32 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: The last one I encountered was on public land at a National Park. It was a 20'x20' square made of chain-link fence and it was not visible or within earshot of any of the common areas (parking lot, restrooms, ranger station, etc.) There was a tiny placard near the ranger station directing people to it. It made me want to vomit

 
If I went to enjoy a national park and it was so filled with KKK so I couldn't enjoy the park for its intended purpose it would make me want to vomit more.

Roads, parks, courts, etc are all public property that we have democratically decided have certain uses.  I dont agree with the way free speech are often set up but that doesn't mean those areas are a free for all protest wise.
 
2013-09-16 05:45:53 PM  
retailers.s3.amazonaws.com

These men live and die to maintain the following Free Speech Zone:

i.infopls.com
fark the police in this story, fark the red light cameras, and fark anyone who tries to limit your rights.
 
2013-09-16 05:46:54 PM  

mama2tnt: gilgigamesh: netizencain: "Once traffic came to a stop, he would walk in between cars"

Maybe that was the bigger issue.

I don't know what the deal is where he lives, but here in New Orleans homeless panhandlers and fundraisers (often children) do this all the time unmolested. It bugs the fark out of me, especially the kids, for obvious reasons.

Firefighters with boots, homeless with signs, whatever - they're all over the streets in my town, and not one of them seems afraid of being run over. It especially bothers me to see them on the skinny little medians - just one texter or old person can take 'em out. (And should.)


As a volunteer firefighter in my state, and struggling to make ends meet to keep the department open (to protect people like you during fires, wrecks, natural disasters), I understand their fundraising tactics.  I suggest you join and see how hard it is to keep a public free service open....

Maybe someone should "take you out".
 
2013-09-16 05:52:23 PM  

dpaul007: FTFA: "Schmidter was jailed for handing out flyers on the courthouse steps outside of a designated free speech zone."

What a "Free Speech Zone" might look like:

[www.horseshoesonline.com image 512x330]


Four colors suffice.
 
2013-09-16 05:54:23 PM  

liam76: Unless he was breaking the law he didn'tneed a permit.

Handing out things at a red light deosn't seem to break any laws.


No more than selling newspapers or flowers does.
Hmmm...cops don't happen to get a cut of the red light proceeds, do they?
 
2013-09-16 05:55:03 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Can you imagine if the 1963 civil rights march on Washington (for example) was not allowed to proceed because it "impeded traffic" or some other nonsense?


You know they applied for and got permits, right?


Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: 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


You know that means more than just non, violent, right?
 
2013-09-16 06:21:27 PM  

ka1axy: Hmmm...cops don't happen to get a cut of the red light proceeds, do they?


They get jobs with red light camera contractors once they retire.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3680.asp
 
2013-09-16 06:30:46 PM  

Coconice: My only support for this type of thing comes from the fact that I feel that my right to travel through an area unmolested is no less important than the right of protestors to be heard.


I was not aware you had such a right.
 
2013-09-16 06:56:13 PM  
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.


There that is his permit.
 
2013-09-16 06:56:20 PM  
They guy should have just carried a pocket sized Constitution and presented it when asked if he had a permit.
 
2013-09-16 07:14:26 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.


There that is his permit.



That power was delegated to the States ;)
 
2013-09-16 07:20:05 PM  
He was arrested for contempt of cop, nothing else.  If a cop tells you to do something lawful or not and you don't do it you are going to jail.  Usually on resisting without violence, or obstruction.

Also in FL I am pretty sure you are required by law and precedent to identify yourself (not with ID but name and address) so the obstruction has some merit *but* I am pretty sure the officer needs probable cause to ask for the identification which it sounds like he may or may not have.
 
2013-09-16 07:28:05 PM  

jaylectricity: Gig103: rjakobi: Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.

That's what was said about those uppity folks in the south that used to do peaceful sit-ins.

I used to ride in the back of the bus with black people, when that was a thing.


How did they drive the bus from back there?
 
2013-09-16 07:30:18 PM  

Honest Bender: Coconice: My only support for this type of thing comes from the fact that I feel that my right to travel through an area unmolested is no less important than the right of protestors to be heard.

I was not aware you had such a right.


9th Amendment, have a look.
 
2013-09-16 07:36:55 PM  

feckingmorons: Honest Bender: Coconice: My only support for this type of thing comes from the fact that I feel that my right to travel through an area unmolested is no less important than the right of protestors to be heard.

I was not aware you had such a right.

9th Amendment, have a look.


The 9th amendment doesn't give you the right to "travel through an area unmolested."  If you had that right, the 9th amendment just says the constitution can't take it away.
 
2013-09-16 08:05:03 PM  

Honest Bender: The 9th amendment doesn't give you the right to "travel through an area unmolested."


The Constitution doesn't GIVE anyone any rights.  It specifically outlines what the government is allowed to do, and how it's to be done.  And if you want to be pedantic, the 10th amendment most certainly protects the "right to travel through an area unmolested".
 
2013-09-16 08:26:15 PM  

Honest Bender: feckingmorons: Honest Bender: Coconice: My only support for this type of thing comes from the fact that I feel that my right to travel through an area unmolested is no less important than the right of protestors to be heard.

I was not aware you had such a right.

9th Amendment, have a look.

The 9th amendment doesn't give you the right to "travel through an area unmolested."  If you had that right, the 9th amendment just says the constitution can't take it away.


You do have that right. It is an innate right all people have.

It is memorialized in UDHR §13.

The right to travel is a fundamental natural right, it does not owe its existence to the government (see 9th Amendment above) . This is recognized by the Courts as a natural right.

"The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law. A restraint imposed by the Government of the United States upon this liberty, therefore, must conform with the provision of the Fifth Amendment that "No person shall be * * * deprived of * * * liberty * * * without due process of law"." Schatman v. Dulles [225 F2d. 938]

Your rights don't need to be enumerated somewhere for you to have such rights, in fact our mere existence grants us untold rights that may be abridged or infringed upon only with supremely valid reason and as minimally as possible to achieve the purposes for which they are abrogated and such abrogation always subject to judicial review.


You probably also have a different definition of unmolested. Some guy asking you to sign a petition does not infringe upon any of your rights.
 
2013-09-16 08:34:44 PM  
Any lawyers from George around to weigh in on what sort of permit I might need to stand on the Georgia side of the border, getting signatures for my petition to saw Florida off and let it float away to rejoin Cuba?
 
2013-09-16 08:35:19 PM  
GEORGIA
 
2013-09-16 09:01:14 PM  

cgremlin: The Constitution doesn't GIVE anyone any rights.


...That's exactly what it does.

feckingmorons: You do have that right. It is an innate right all people have.

It is memorialized in UDHR §13.


You're half way there, good job!  Now show me that part that says you can't be molested while traveling.
 
2013-09-16 09:11:43 PM  

feckingmorons: jaylectricity: Gig103: rjakobi: Ah, so he's an attention whore.

Lock them all up.

That's what was said about those uppity folks in the south that used to do peaceful sit-ins.

I used to ride in the back of the bus with black people, when that was a thing.

How did they drive the bus from back there?


Sheet, you think they let black people drive cars back then?
 
2013-09-16 09:32:05 PM  

Honest Bender: cgremlin: The Constitution doesn't GIVE anyone any rights....That's exactly what it does.


I am sorry but you are completely incorrect. Our rights are ours because we exist. Some rights are very important and have had a history of being stolen from us by government. Those rights were enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because they are so important. The Ninth Amendment points out exactly that, we have all of the rights in the Constitution and many, many more that aren't listed but that we enjoy simply because we exist.

The Constitution most certainly doesn't list every right we have. Think of the right to privacy, it is not enumerated in the Constitution yet it was fundamental in the Roe v. Wade case. Or Griswold v. Connecticut in which the marital 'right to privacy' was sacrosanct and therefore the State of Connecticut could not prohibit the use of contraceptives.

You have rights because you exist, not because they're written down.


Honest Bender: You're half way there, good job!  Now show me that part that says you can't be molested while traveling.


One's rights coexist peacefully with the rights of others. Just as you have the right to go about your business unimpeded, others have the right to speak in public. You can drive your car and someone can walk up to it at a stoplight and offer a petition for your signature. You haven't been molested, your journey not interrupted, your right to drive to the store has met the petition bearer's right to speak and they are not in conflict.

You have no obligation to roll down your window, or acknowledge the speaker. The petitioner has no obligation to refrain from speaking whilst near your car, nor to offer you the petition if he chooses not to.

He can't hit you with a stick and ask you to sign, nor can you punch him in the chops as he approaches your car. We can all live peaceably when we understand that our rights are also the rights of the man next to us. We live in a civilized society, respect for another person's rights is not an infringement upon ours.

What you consider a molestation is in actuality one of the most important rights we enjoy, the right to petition, the right to speak, the right to assemble. So important that they are the foremost in the Bill of Rights. It is imperative that we respect one another's right to speak freely as it is only through the free flow of ideas and information that our nation maintains all of the other freedoms and rights- both memorialized in the Bill of rights- as well as those inalienable rights with which we are blessed solely by our presence on this terrestrial sphere.
 
2013-09-16 09:37:50 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: OtherLittleGuy: rjakobi:

some other great A.W.'s who were pesky troublemakers:
Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin; just to name a few.
Upstarts, I say. Upstarts, the lot of them.


as was this guy

i1277.photobucket.com

As F*ckingMorons said, the right to travel is implied in the constitutional right to liberty.  Speech zones are sometimes attempts to restrict speech under guise of a permissible restriction on time, place or manner, but in rare cases acceptable.  As noted, a hearing or legislative body in session are examples of places where not allowing you to speak freely could be a reasonable exercise of a time/place/manner restriction.
 
2013-09-16 09:57:27 PM  

feckingmorons: What you consider a molestation is in actuality one of the most important rights we enjoy, the right to petition, the right to speak, the right to assemble. So important that they are the foremost in the Bill of Rights. It is imperative that we respect one another's right to speak freely as it is only through the free flow of ideas and information that our nation maintains all of the other freedoms and rights- both memorialized in the Bill of rights- as well as those inalienable rights with which we are blessed solely by our presence on this terrestrial sphere.


It freaks me out to even imagine a time when people weren't allowed to mention that the powers that be weren't doing things the way they should.
 
2013-09-17 12:00:28 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: They are so far "out of peoples' way" that their message cannot be heard at all.  The last one I encountered was on public land at a National Park.  It was a 20'x20' square made of chain-link fence and it was not visible or within earshot of any of the common areas (parking lot, restrooms, ranger station, etc.)   There was a tiny placard near the ranger station directing people to it.  It made me want to vomit.


Wait, what?

The ones that I've seen in the national parks have always been just off the main entrance into the Visitor's Centers.  It's the entire reason why I'm less against them than I otherwise would be.  They're still a violation of the 1st amendment, but if you're doing it in a "These crazy idiots are not affiliated with us" way vs. a "Putting people we don't like in the next county over" way, I'm less against them.

/And I admit there's a confirmation bias because I don't see the ones that aren't right there next to the visitor's center.
 
2013-09-17 03:19:07 AM  

Headso: GoldSpider: I was under the impression that requiring citizens to be properly registered/licensed before they be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights was called "common sense".

you think it's common sense for this guy to have to get a permit to handout flyers?


Subtle comment was too subtle for you...
 
2013-09-17 06:31:26 AM  

meyerkev: The ones that I've seen in the national parks have always been just off the main entrance into the Visitor's Centers.  It's the entire reason why I'm less against them than I otherwise would be.   They're still a violation of the 1st amendment, but if you're doing it in a "These crazy idiots are not affiliated with us" way vs. a "Putting people we don't like in the next county over" way, I'm less against them.

/And I admit there's a confirmation bias because I don't see the ones that aren't right there next to the visitor's center.


I disagree.

The parks like roads ro courts are govt land set aside for a specific purpose.
 
Displayed 117 of 117 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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