69 ms·
The interesting thing about this is that it's very nearly a First Amendment infringement on the right to assemble. In order to assemble on a street–a fairly obv
by saraid216 12y ago
The interesting thing about this is that it's very nearly a First Amendment infringement on the right to assemble. In order to assemble on a street–a fairly obvious place to do so, for a protest, since it has good exposure and visibility–you have to ask the police to explicitly redirect traffic on your behalf. That's not a small hurdle.
- sliverstorm 12y agoOnly if you interpret the 1st as absolute.
- dreamdu5t 12y agoIt is absolute if you aren't a weasel or have a political axe to grind (the supreme court): "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."
- sliverstorm 12y agoSo you believe incitement to violence, death threats, defamation, and false advertising should be protected, and the FCC is unconstitutional? And even more specifically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a weasel or has ulterior motives?
- dtech 12y agoI assume the US has parks and squares too.
- whoopdedo 12y agoParks are considered private property owned by the city/state/federal government and police can charge you with trespassing.
- mcv 12y agoPrivate property owned by the government? What sort of odd concept is that?
- saraid216 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Criticisms