Jump to content

Boobirds In Brigham Sue Over "Free-Speech" Zones


USU78

Recommended Posts

In today's Deseret News it's reported that the ACLU on behalf of an Evie Protestant group in Brigham City is suing the city and its officers for an ordinance prohibiting protestors from interfering with the offloading area West of the Temple during the open house.

As a 6th grader I and a few others were tasked with putting up barriers to prevent people from even driving along 100 West between 200 and 300 South, since part of the playground for Central School was situated midblock West of 100 West.

It's a narrowish street: definitely only a 2 laner without a mid stripe.

The buses and the visitors being offloaded there create quite the traffic problem.

I cannot imagine anybody wanting to try to drive along there: too many people and buses; too much congestion; too much of a mess. It is unthinkable to add protestors and extra security, including police, to the mix.

Link to comment

In today's Deseret News it's reported that the ACLU on behalf of an Evie Protestant group in Brigham City is suing the city and its officers for an ordinance prohibiting protestors from interfering with the offloading area West of the Temple during the open house.

As a 6th grader I and a few others were tasked with putting up barriers to prevent people from even driving along 100 West between 200 and 300 South, since part of the playground for Central School was situated midblock West of 100 West.

It's a narrowish street: definitely only a 2 laner without a mid stripe.

The buses and the visitors being offloaded there create quite the traffic problem.

I cannot imagine anybody wanting to try to drive along there: too many people and buses; too much congestion; too much of a mess. It is unthinkable to add protestors and extra security, including police, to the mix.

Yep, the city official said that anyone including the LDS Church would be treated the same, refused permission.
Link to comment

I think the entire concept of "free speech zones" is rather Orwellian. Isn't the entire country supposed to be a free speech zone? Since when do we need designated areas where it's okay to exercise our First Amendment rights, rather like the smoking section in a restaurant? (Gee thanks, Dubyah!)

Link to comment

I think the entire concept of "free speech zones" is rather Orwellian. Isn't the entire country supposed to be a free speech zone? Since when do we need designated areas where it's okay to exercise our First Amendment rights, rather like the smoking section in a restaurant? (Gee thanks, Dubyah!)

Only public property (this is not a reference to the OP).

Link to comment

Freedom of speech does not mean that each citizen is enabled to express themselves where ever they choose. It appears that we have lost common sense and common decency in our society. The stupider we become as a society the more rights we will lose in an effort to maintain a semblance of order. As we become progressively more ignorant our rights will continue to erode until our society becomes overwhelmed with laws that direct each citizen in everything. The result will be a demand that each citizen think alike, act alike, and speak alike, all in the name of freedom.

We are not far from a society that dictates to its members, "You can think anything you like as long as you think like me." That is not freedom unless society has become uneducated, thoughtless, barbarians. Our current situation has been built on the foundation of "me"; it is what "I" feel, I want, I think and in complete disregard of what our community needs and should have.

Link to comment

I think the entire concept of "free speech zones" is rather Orwellian. Isn't the entire country supposed to be a free speech zone? Since when do we need designated areas where it's okay to exercise our First Amendment rights, rather like the smoking section in a restaurant? (Gee thanks, Dubyah!)

Dubyah, isn't much to blame for restrictions on speech. You can't yell fire in a theater, you can't block abortion clinics, and there are other restrictions....these restrictions are due to Courts.

Link to comment

Please show me those exclusions in the US Constitution.

Are you addressing the question to me? Well, within my house you don't necessarily have "free speech" as I can ask you to leave at any time. Another example is my brother complaining that Facebook deleted something negative he said about Obama and he complained about freedom of speech. What he didn't understand is Facebook is a private corporation and on their property (their website) they set the rules. And, finally, a perfect example is that protestors are not allowed to protest within the temple.

Link to comment

Freedom of Speech is primarily about the freedom to promulgate ideas without persecution. It was not intended to mean that all other laws are on hold so everyone can say their bit about anything whenever or wherever they choose.

It's purpose is to keep you from being arrested for spreading unpopular ideas or holding meetings critical of the government or fomenting change. It does not give you the right to impede traffic to hold a sidewalk meeting, harass children going to school with rhetoric, speak without any controls at any government meeting, or to disrupt the activities of others.

Link to comment

I think the entire concept of "free speech zones" is rather Orwellian. Isn't the entire country supposed to be a free speech zone? Since when do we need designated areas where it's okay to exercise our First Amendment rights...

I agree I think the protestor should have the right to protest in the middle of the road if they want to... as long as I have the right to drive down that road ;)

Link to comment

Please show me those exclusions in the US Constitution.

basically your constitutional rights go so far until you infringe on others rights. Its something constitutional law scholars love to debate. You are free to protest on a sidewalk unless you presence on the sidewalk infringes on others right to use the side walk. In other words your right to protest does not trump my right to walk on the sidewalk (what it was intended for).

Link to comment

In today's Deseret News it's reported that the ACLU on behalf of an Evie Protestant group in Brigham City is suing the city and its officers for an ordinance prohibiting protestors from interfering with the offloading area West of the Temple during the open house.

As a 6th grader I and a few others were tasked with putting up barriers to prevent people from even driving along 100 West between 200 and 300 South, since part of the playground for Central School was situated midblock West of 100 West.

It's a narrowish street: definitely only a 2 laner without a mid stripe.

The buses and the visitors being offloaded there create quite the traffic problem.

I cannot imagine anybody wanting to try to drive along there: too many people and buses; too much cOongestion; too much of a mess. It is unthinkable to add protestors and extra security, including police, to the mix.

I think they would see the world differently if someone wanted to stand outside their places of worship (I speak of the fringe EV types who think they are doing God's will) and yell through bullhorns at their own patrons on Sundays. Not surprised at ALCU being involved.
Link to comment

I agree I think the protestor should have the right to protest in the middle of the road if they want to... as long as I have the right to drive down that road ;)

Sounds about right.

(note this is a Blues Brothers joke not a Godwin violation)

Link to comment

basically your constitutional rights go so far until you infringe on others rights. Its something constitutional law scholars love to debate. You are free to protest on a sidewalk unless you presence on the sidewalk infringes on others right to use the side walk. In other words your right to protest does not trump my right to walk on the sidewalk (what it was intended for).

Very true. However, this alone does not justify setting aside specific public areas where people may exercise their right to free speech (often well away from the event they're protesting, or the eyes of the media), while disallowing it elsewhere. I see no reason why a group of people could not gather on a sidewalk to speak for whatever they're speaking for, as long as they allow others to pass through unmolested and unthreatened. Or to gather in a larger place, like a statehouse lawn, a parking lot, or a park.

"Free Speech Zone" sounds Orwellian because it implies that you don't have freedom of speech outside of that area. And because those areas are often roped off, fenced in, and/or surrounded by armed policemen, it looks like a veritable parody of freedom. In my view, the "default" for the entire country should be for people to have freedom of speech, with exceptions only for specific reasons like preventing violence (inciting riot), preventing panic (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), preventing espionage (freedom of speech does not give one the right to compromise national security), or private property (you can tell someone to leave your house for pretty much whatever reason you want, including not liking what they're saying). But freedom should be the default.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...