8 ms·

Be Careful What Your Bumper Sticker Says

27 points by phsr 17y ago

fnid2 17y ago
What about the freedom to peacefully assemble? That's in the first amendment as well. If you want to see more of these rights violations, wait a couple weeks until people start protesting a particular sporting event in america's neighbor to the north. If you are carrying a sign in opposition to the rings, you'll be arrested!
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  >What about the freedom to peacefully assemble? That's in the first amendment as well. You want to extend the right to peaceful assembly to private property? So if your partners ex- doesn't like you they can picket your bed?!
  - codexon 17y ago
    Your partner can't picket your bed because that would be trespassing. The people in this article had the rights and invitation to be at the speech. There was no trespassing involved. They weren't even picketing before they were forced to leave.
    - aero142 17y ago
      Invitations are not permanent. If I invite you to my house and then ask you to leave, you still need to leave even though I had previously invited you. It's private property.
      - codexon 17y ago
        Of course they aren't permanent. However, in this case, the people who had those bumper stickers weren't doing anything warranting eviction. How would you feel if someone denied you an "invitation" to a privately owned supermarket because you were black and you "might" say something about all the white people shopping there?
        nathanieljones 17y ago
        It doesn't matter whether I do something warranting eviction. The owner of the private property I am on has final say over who is on his property. He can invite me onto his property for the sole purpose of evicting me to make me mad at him, if he likes. He does not need a reason to change his mind, because he can do what he likes with his property. Ownership of property is a major basis of common law, traced back to the dawn of civilization. Our entire society depends upon it.
        codexon 17y ago
        You are wrong. It matters if you do something warranting eviction. The supreme court ruled in Brown v. Board of Eduction of Topeka that racial segregation is a violation of the 14th amendment. This means you cannot evict people even from your privately owned businesses because of their race due to the commerce clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause So if the people with the bumper stickers were black and asked to leave because they were black, it would be a slam dunk case against them. Now we may see if this reaches the supreme court and whether they protect people from being discriminated for their political views.
        nathanieljones 17y ago
        Race is the one exception the Supreme Court has made among an infinite list of possible exceptions. Their decision, I believe, has very little to do with the principles of common law and a great deal to do with our own history as a country. Regardless of their reasoning, racial issues are a bit off point. You said it does matter if you do something warranting eviction, but that's not entirely true. The rule stands, just with a clause added: The owner of a piece of property may evict anyone for any reason or no reason at all, unless his actions are proven to be racially motivated. Again, this rule has existed since man has formed social structures. It's a rather important issue, and the Founding Fathers took it very seriously, which is why the third amendment prohibits the quartering of troops on private property. I understand the Supreme Court has upheld one exception, but that does not destroy the rule. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court considered a man's opinions -- political or religious beliefs -- as worthy of as much protection as facts about himself that he cannot change, such as the color of his skin.
- soldarnal 17y ago
  Nobody has the right to assemble on someone else's private property. Moreover, even with public property, the right to peacefully assemble seems to be not without restraint. For instance, the courts have upheld laws creating "buffer zones" for abortion clinic protests. Likewise, a lot of cities require you to get a permit for demonstration purposes.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    It was property rented by the government for the event and so it was therefore temporarily public property and a public event.
codexon 17y ago
This is highly unsurprising considering the law and the attitude of the public (including HN). The first amendment has no bearing on "private" places, even if a public figure such as the President is involved. However disagreeable this may be, it seems that most people on HN would agree with the ruling as evidenced by highly voted comments such as this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1068959 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1068959
joubert 17y ago
Is this museum a wholly private institution? It seems so, but the link at the bottom of their page to SCFD (which seems like a state governmental body) confuses me. Does the museum get tax payer dollars?
teeja 17y ago
It's not a great result, but it was private property - I was thrown out of a friend's wedding at the Eagle's because my hair was too long! (collar length!) Kind of pales next to people not being allowed to demonstrate unless they 1. have a permit and/or 2. are willing to stand inside a fenced-off area. Or to gather together on private property to attend a rave party (invaded by SWAT team, in Utah). Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman

27 points by phsr 17y ago

fnid2 17y ago

What about the freedom to peacefully assemble? That's in the first amendment as well. If you want to see more of these rights violations, wait a couple weeks until people start protesting a particular sporting event in america's neighbor to the north. If you are carrying a sign in opposition to the rings, you'll be arrested!

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
>What about the freedom to peacefully assemble? That's in the first amendment as well. You want to extend the right to peaceful assembly to private property? So if your partners ex- doesn't like you they can picket your bed?!
- codexon 17y ago
  Your partner can't picket your bed because that would be trespassing. The people in this article had the rights and invitation to be at the speech. There was no trespassing involved. They weren't even picketing before they were forced to leave.
  - aero142 17y ago
    Invitations are not permanent. If I invite you to my house and then ask you to leave, you still need to leave even though I had previously invited you. It's private property.
    - codexon 17y ago
      Of course they aren't permanent. However, in this case, the people who had those bumper stickers weren't doing anything warranting eviction. How would you feel if someone denied you an "invitation" to a privately owned supermarket because you were black and you "might" say something about all the white people shopping there?
      - nathanieljones 17y ago
        It doesn't matter whether I do something warranting eviction. The owner of the private property I am on has final say over who is on his property. He can invite me onto his property for the sole purpose of evicting me to make me mad at him, if he likes. He does not need a reason to change his mind, because he can do what he likes with his property. Ownership of property is a major basis of common law, traced back to the dawn of civilization. Our entire society depends upon it.
        codexon 17y ago
        You are wrong. It matters if you do something warranting eviction. The supreme court ruled in Brown v. Board of Eduction of Topeka that racial segregation is a violation of the 14th amendment. This means you cannot evict people even from your privately owned businesses because of their race due to the commerce clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause So if the people with the bumper stickers were black and asked to leave because they were black, it would be a slam dunk case against them. Now we may see if this reaches the supreme court and whether they protect people from being discriminated for their political views.
        nathanieljones 17y ago
        Race is the one exception the Supreme Court has made among an infinite list of possible exceptions. Their decision, I believe, has very little to do with the principles of common law and a great deal to do with our own history as a country. Regardless of their reasoning, racial issues are a bit off point. You said it does matter if you do something warranting eviction, but that's not entirely true. The rule stands, just with a clause added: The owner of a piece of property may evict anyone for any reason or no reason at all, unless his actions are proven to be racially motivated. Again, this rule has existed since man has formed social structures. It's a rather important issue, and the Founding Fathers took it very seriously, which is why the third amendment prohibits the quartering of troops on private property. I understand the Supreme Court has upheld one exception, but that does not destroy the rule. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court considered a man's opinions -- political or religious beliefs -- as worthy of as much protection as facts about himself that he cannot change, such as the color of his skin.
soldarnal 17y ago
Nobody has the right to assemble on someone else's private property. Moreover, even with public property, the right to peacefully assemble seems to be not without restraint. For instance, the courts have upheld laws creating "buffer zones" for abortion clinic protests. Likewise, a lot of cities require you to get a permit for demonstration purposes.
- fnid2 17y ago
  It was property rented by the government for the event and so it was therefore temporarily public property and a public event.

codexon 17y ago

This is highly unsurprising considering the law and the attitude of the public (including HN). The first amendment has no bearing on "private" places, even if a public figure such as the President is involved. However disagreeable this may be, it seems that most people on HN would agree with the ruling as evidenced by highly voted comments such as this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1068959 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1068959

joubert 17y ago

Is this museum a wholly private institution? It seems so, but the link at the bottom of their page to SCFD (which seems like a state governmental body) confuses me. Does the museum get tax payer dollars?

teeja 17y ago

It's not a great result, but it was private property - I was thrown out of a friend's wedding at the Eagle's because my hair was too long! (collar length!) Kind of pales next to people not being allowed to demonstrate unless they 1. have a permit and/or 2. are willing to stand inside a fenced-off area. Or to gather together on private property to attend a rave party (invaded by SWAT team, in Utah). Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman