So I encounter a recent protest video that is basically a protest concerning the police handling of a protest which namely ended in the arrest of 71 people...
Here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlJFiUOeUc
I've seen comments suggesting that it is not the right of people to assemble on the basis of 'disturbing the peace' of a given city, municipally speaking, I would assume where noise ordinances or something should apply in so far as 'disturbing the peace'...although I am not certain that the police in making their arrests had defined peaceful protesters as having violated any such law. Other than apparently they were in violation of 'being a nuisance'. Apparently, however, with any active assembly when it comes to fascist bigots on the other hand 'freedom of speech' is defended, and especially in being nuisances so much that 'shout downs' should be required by funeral goers, or that sadly enough another organized assembly for instance, clogs traffic so much that organized 'bigots' have a hard time getting to their protest site, but on the other hand, they do have a constitutional right, but on the other hand, peaceful protesters of an officers acquittal do not have such right...it would be nice if 'bigots' were arrested for disorderly nuisance, but it just so happens that is considered 'unconstitutional' as defined by a recent, not a way past, Supreme Court ruling. Then, now I am puzzled why 'bigots' can be defended in one context, and others not defended? I guess I'd like to have something of a distinction provided here...maybe its necessary to bury soldiers in the middle of cities where apparently public 'nuisance' laws should apply so greatly?
I don't know it sounds an awful lot like there is potentially a double standard with respect to constitutional rights, the right of free speech assembly? I mean usually the protesters of an officers acquittal might have assembled in the actively organized sense for the one time event of a given acquittal announcement, but it seems hardly a full time 'occupation' movement, or exactly fitting to the description of 'nuisance' in my opinion.
Legal argumentation from a constitutional standpoint that I've heard, in terms of modern interpretation, have pertained to, for instance, the nature of one's constitutional right with respect to one's ability to assembly and the space or forum being defined in allowing such. Thus in terms of constitutional right it is a bigger deal when a city provides little space for 'free speech' assembly as opposed to where the allotment of space is plentiful and the argument say were made for right over a square of inch of turf that were disallowed. That is, given the opportunity to assemble every where else with the same protest but choosing to do so where free speech might be restricted in the context of public access might be a less convincing case to be had in so far as arguing one's violation of free speech. That being said, where a city has made little to no ample space for protesting may, on the other hand, fall clearly in the subset of violating freedom of speech here, or in other words, I am not so certain that it would be entirely permissible that cities entirely restrict in any given urban sphere public space those of the right to assemble in free speech by so called 'nuisance' or 'disturbance of the peace' ordinances. Where law enforcement clearly uses 'public nuisance' laws merely as an aid to squelch assembly and protest, as opposed to indicating to such crowd where other publicly permissible space should exist on the other hand an abuse in my opinion, and could likely be in violation of constitutional rights. It also a bigger deal when engagement between law enforcement and crowds are given neither to tactics of dispersal, but cornering and trapping crowds into a place where options of dispersal are neither given, I'd imagine, and where intent to arrest is a given? By the way, arrest, seizure of property (printing presses back in that day) and/or violence is probably the biggest deal, I would think, to violations of Freedom of Speech compared to anything in terms of policing, and is probably where constitutional law was most intent in purpose to combat against in terms of definition because it is the most impacting in terms of use of power.
In any event to a comment suggesting that 'noise', 'disturbance of peace' laws emphatically apply in so far as use of public space whenever and where, the answer is NO. This is not correct. A look up on basic legal advice on this matter, for instance, does indicate there is a legal possibility that any speech may be defended under First Amendment rights if ever a 'disturbance of the peace' charge is used against you. I am guessing the same could be applied for 'nuisance' potentially here.
http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/control.html
Also provides some supplement information distinguishing the types of speech afforded the highest level of protections versus 'content-neutral' speech. Also mentions things which can control the degree of latitude provided in so far as public assembly, namely, things like threats of violence.
Here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlJFiUOeUc
I've seen comments suggesting that it is not the right of people to assemble on the basis of 'disturbing the peace' of a given city, municipally speaking, I would assume where noise ordinances or something should apply in so far as 'disturbing the peace'...although I am not certain that the police in making their arrests had defined peaceful protesters as having violated any such law. Other than apparently they were in violation of 'being a nuisance'. Apparently, however, with any active assembly when it comes to fascist bigots on the other hand 'freedom of speech' is defended, and especially in being nuisances so much that 'shout downs' should be required by funeral goers, or that sadly enough another organized assembly for instance, clogs traffic so much that organized 'bigots' have a hard time getting to their protest site, but on the other hand, they do have a constitutional right, but on the other hand, peaceful protesters of an officers acquittal do not have such right...it would be nice if 'bigots' were arrested for disorderly nuisance, but it just so happens that is considered 'unconstitutional' as defined by a recent, not a way past, Supreme Court ruling. Then, now I am puzzled why 'bigots' can be defended in one context, and others not defended? I guess I'd like to have something of a distinction provided here...maybe its necessary to bury soldiers in the middle of cities where apparently public 'nuisance' laws should apply so greatly?
I don't know it sounds an awful lot like there is potentially a double standard with respect to constitutional rights, the right of free speech assembly? I mean usually the protesters of an officers acquittal might have assembled in the actively organized sense for the one time event of a given acquittal announcement, but it seems hardly a full time 'occupation' movement, or exactly fitting to the description of 'nuisance' in my opinion.
Legal argumentation from a constitutional standpoint that I've heard, in terms of modern interpretation, have pertained to, for instance, the nature of one's constitutional right with respect to one's ability to assembly and the space or forum being defined in allowing such. Thus in terms of constitutional right it is a bigger deal when a city provides little space for 'free speech' assembly as opposed to where the allotment of space is plentiful and the argument say were made for right over a square of inch of turf that were disallowed. That is, given the opportunity to assemble every where else with the same protest but choosing to do so where free speech might be restricted in the context of public access might be a less convincing case to be had in so far as arguing one's violation of free speech. That being said, where a city has made little to no ample space for protesting may, on the other hand, fall clearly in the subset of violating freedom of speech here, or in other words, I am not so certain that it would be entirely permissible that cities entirely restrict in any given urban sphere public space those of the right to assemble in free speech by so called 'nuisance' or 'disturbance of the peace' ordinances. Where law enforcement clearly uses 'public nuisance' laws merely as an aid to squelch assembly and protest, as opposed to indicating to such crowd where other publicly permissible space should exist on the other hand an abuse in my opinion, and could likely be in violation of constitutional rights. It also a bigger deal when engagement between law enforcement and crowds are given neither to tactics of dispersal, but cornering and trapping crowds into a place where options of dispersal are neither given, I'd imagine, and where intent to arrest is a given? By the way, arrest, seizure of property (printing presses back in that day) and/or violence is probably the biggest deal, I would think, to violations of Freedom of Speech compared to anything in terms of policing, and is probably where constitutional law was most intent in purpose to combat against in terms of definition because it is the most impacting in terms of use of power.
In any event to a comment suggesting that 'noise', 'disturbance of peace' laws emphatically apply in so far as use of public space whenever and where, the answer is NO. This is not correct. A look up on basic legal advice on this matter, for instance, does indicate there is a legal possibility that any speech may be defended under First Amendment rights if ever a 'disturbance of the peace' charge is used against you. I am guessing the same could be applied for 'nuisance' potentially here.
http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/control.html
Also provides some supplement information distinguishing the types of speech afforded the highest level of protections versus 'content-neutral' speech. Also mentions things which can control the degree of latitude provided in so far as public assembly, namely, things like threats of violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment