Boobirds In Brigham Sue Over "Free-Speech" Zones

[Judd]

Judd:

No one is disputing what you allow inside your own home in terms of speech. Though you may find yourself with fewer friends if they feel you are being excessively controlling. All other private property on the other hand has much less freedom, and may run afoul of other laws.

I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're responding to. DH posed a statement about the whole country being a free speech zone, to which I responded that wasn't completely the case. You commented wanting to know where that was in the constitution. It wasn't clear if you were addressing me with that request and I suppose you still haven't clarified but I'll presume it was given the context. I responded with several scenarios demonstrating that the whole country really wasn't a free speech zone, to which you have responded with the above but I'm struggling to find the relevance as they were demonstrations in response to your question and not assertions of my personal opinions.

[Saints Alive]

...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)...

This is precisely why their are free speech zones. It would be very impractical for the police to protect both the protestors and the public in certain areas. The free speech zones are cordoned off areas that make it feasible for the police to protect and prevent a riot. Some areas do it better than others. I personally think the San Francesco police could have done a better job at the temple protests.

p.s. I think there was a precedent set that as long as you are given the right to speak in the general vicinity your rights are not violated. I'll have to look that up.

[thesometimesaint]

Saints Alive:

"Free Speech Zones" are a modern invention. We in the US have always had the right to peaceably assemble, and prior restraint is to be frowned upon.

[rpn]

When society doesn't stand up for the free speech for all, then it is harmed. The pejorative title here reflects a disregard for this important right that keeps us all free. The problem is that the prohibitions are for all sidewalks on all sides of the temple. When they were negotiating permits, they gave them the sides with nobody there. That may be defensible because of the traffic issues identified. But it would have been more defensible if the original ordinance had not removed all of the area around the temple as a Free Speech zone. (The ordinance was past in 2010: I don't know what the block was then, or whether the traffic issues were on the same sides.) While I understand why a faith community would want to keep protesters as far away as possible, free speech is also important to our communities.

[thesometimesaint]

The latest from Brigham City

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865562366/Free-speech-zones-suspended-in-Brigham-City.html

[Saints Alive]

Saints Alive:

"Free Speech Zones" are a modern invention. We in the US have always had the right to peaceably assemble, and prior restraint is to be frowned upon.

That doesn't change the rationale for limiting where someone can protest out of concern for safety.

[thesometimesaint]

Saints Alive:

We have no right to unpeaceably assemble. Violators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However some undefined concern for safety doesn't excuse prior restraint.

SEE The Pentagon Papers

Note that I didn't say I agreed with or even like what those particular protesters say, but without substantial evidence of incitement, in California there is no such thing as "fighting words", or impeding others from exercising their own rights. Prior restraints violate the spirit and the letter of the law. Handing out Anti-Mormon tracts maybe stupid in my opinion but they have every right to prove how stupid they are.

Ps; If those protesters were just left alone to pass out those fliers, few if anyone would have really cared, and would have just thrown the tracts away. As it is it brought an unnecessary dispute to an otherwise cool event, the open house event at the Temple.

[Saints Alive]

Thesometimesaint,

I think you are looking at it more from the perspective of protecting people from the protestors. The police also have a duty to protect the protestors from passerbys.

In any case I don't nessisarily agree that free speach zones are the best but I understand why they are used.

[thesometimesaint]

Saints Alive:

Actually I'm for protecting everyone from the idiots on all sides. Give it all the attention it so rightfully deserves(ignore it) and next week it is forgotten. Call attention to it and it flourishes. Just provide plenty a waste cans and the problem takes care of itself.

[DH]

This is precisely why their are free speech zones. It would be very impractical for the police to protect both the protestors and the public in certain areas. The free speech zones are cordoned off areas that make it feasible for the police to protect and prevent a riot. Some areas do it better than others. I personally think the San Francesco police could have done a better job at the temple protests.

p.s. I think there was a precedent set that as long as you are given the right to speak in the general vicinity your rights are not violated. I'll have to look that up.

Our rights should not be abridged merely for the sake of convenience. There is no reason to assume that every demonstration will turn into a riot. If violence takes place, then the police can, and should, take action to stop it. But to tell a peaceful gathering that they can only speak their mind in this little cordoned off area far away from whatever it is they're protesting in not acceptable.

[Calm]

Do you find limiting free speech in areas where it might impeded traffic or even cause accidents problematic as well? If so, is there not something like a right of expectation of safety on our streets and sidewalks?

[USU78]

The latest from Brigham City

http://www.deseretne...igham-City.html

Because the cowards want their attorney's fees paid for. That's how the ACLU stays in business: holding up small towns like Brigham for fees, getting consent decrees, then trying to impose the rule they imposed on the helpless town upon the rest of the nation.

A nasty racket.

[DavidB]

Because the cowards want their attorney's fees paid for. That's how the ACLU stays in business: holding up small towns like Brigham for fees, getting consent decrees, then trying to impose the rule they imposed on the helpless town upon the rest of the nation.

A nasty racket.

If the issue was really about safety, Brigham City would not have capitulated.....who are the cowards in this situation?

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

So you think that a city has the right to override the US Constitution?

[bluebell]

I love the reaction of the people volunteering and visiting the temple to the protestors. Nothing like implying 'yeah, we're fine with them being here, they are inconsequential to our lives and our church.'

[Calm]

If the issue was really about safety, Brigham City would not have capitulated.....who are the cowards in this situation?

It could still be about safety, but by turning it into a legal issue, the protestors have pushed the safety issue to secondplace in the government's mind. It's not like governments are never overcautious in their choices to protect people. In Canada, a noncola coloured soda can't have caffeine in it just so that no one will accidentally partake of the drug, so root beer can have it but Mountain Dew cannot. Simply being on the label and expecting people who buy it to read it is not enough. I see this example as too much government concern myself. If a company sued for the right to put caffeine in a light coloured soda and won, it doesn't mean that the issue wasn't about safety in the first place.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

Admittedly I know little about Canadian law. But I think they'd have bigger fish to fry than the color of a soda. Food allergies are a big deal to me, as my daughter-in-Law and my Granddaughter both are deathly allergic to poultry. So we always read the labels twice just to make sure.

[Calm]

But I think they'd have bigger fish to fry than the color of a soda.

Yep. I am very careful with labels as well because there are two additives that set off major migraines for me, thankfully they are not so common any more. I assume they are thinking about two groups of people, the immigrants that don't have very good English or French yet and children. I can understand the caution, but wonder where you draw the line as soon as you start making decisions based on the exceptions so much. It is a harmless law at least, except perhaps for the soda companies that would like to put caffeine in certain drinks to increase their appeal, the buzz caffeine gives is a draw for many and is one of the things that advertising companies focus on.

[DavidB]

Calmoriah, in the United States "safety" is a legitimate reason for restrictions on assembles; so Brigham City must have realized they were pushing the bounds of legality with a total ban.

[Calm]

Again, this doesn't mean their original concern wasn't about safety, just that they were likely going about it the wrong way....possibly allowing other concerns to weigh in the decision more than they should have for example.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

It isn't much of a buzz as it takes about 5 caffeinated sodas to equal 1 cup of regular coffee. By the time most would feel the buzz they'd be in the bathroom for the rest of the day. Let's not even talk about all that sugar/aspartame.

[webbles]

If the issue was really about safety, Brigham City would not have capitulated.....who are the cowards in this situation?

I don't think Brigham City capitulated. If you notice in the article, the Main Street Church can only have 4 protestors. Instead, it seems they worked with the group to try and make sure it was still safe. I visited the temple on Friday and I noticed on of them right next to the bus loading area. He was definitely trying to stay out of the way and I never saw him hand out any of the handouts he had (the handouts actually looked more like a newspaper then a pamphlet). If there had been 4 in that spot, it could easily have caused a bottleneck. Most of the people would just get off the bus and go into the parking structure or from the parking structure to the bus so the places were protesters would have the best visibility were very limited and very crowded.

[Calm]

calmoriah:

It isn't much of a buzz as it takes about 5 caffeinated sodas to equal 1 cup of regular coffee. By the time most would feel the buzz they'd be in the bathroom for the rest of the day. Let's not even talk about all that sugar/aspartame.

Depends on the person. One pepsi for me will give me a great deal of energy...and keep me awake for the next 22 hours (over double the amount it is supposed to affect sleep which is ten hours). I can't tolerate aspartame. Sugar...well, depends on how good I've been lately. One time I ended up sick for a day with flulike symptoms from eating a doughnut...that was after three months with no sugar due to being diagnosed as hypoglycemic (I am not, it was a side effect of my sleep disorder). Most of the time it is just a few hours of nausea if I've taken too much too fast.

[DavidB]

The city did capitulate the original order keep protests off the sidewalks directly around the Temple. The original order limited the number of people.

------------------------------

A problem I see is, in the United States most people support freedom until someone exercises the freedom. Here is something from the US Supreme Court "...citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment."Boos v Barry.

What many do not realize is that freedom means unfavorables get that freedom, it means flag burning, sacred text burning, derogatory language directed towards groups.

I may not support the message, but as a Citizen - who has taken multiple oaths to uphold the Constitution - I consider it a duty of all citizens to protect the rights of an unfavorable messenger.

[webbles]

The city did capitulate the original order keep protests off the sidewalks directly around the Temple. The original order limited the number of people.

------------------------------

A problem I see is, in the United States most people support freedom until someone exercises the freedom. Here is something from the US Supreme Court "...citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment."Boos v Barry.

What many do not realize is that freedom means unfavorables get that freedom, it means flag burning, sacred text burning, derogatory language directed towards groups.

I may not support the message, but as a Citizen - who has taken multiple oaths to uphold the Constitution - I consider it a duty of all citizens to protect the rights of an unfavorable messenger.

I think everyone agrees that no one is free to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Yes, you have freedom of speech but if it that speech can cause a serious problem, then you aren't free to do it. In this case, I believe the city was trying to keep the sidewalk safes. The original order said that no one could stand in those areas, instead they could stand in other designated spots. They weren't limiting free speech, they were limiting potential issues. With all the people getting on and off the buses, there was very little room to stand. The one protester was barely on the sidewalk. If they had allowed more, I really do believe that something bad could have happened. The city probably could have allowed a few protesters near the bus stop the entire time but they didn't know how bad it would be and hindsight is 20/20.

And by the way, I'm perfectly fine with the protesters. I even had a lovely chat with him (and not about religion). But if you want to stand in the middle of a large crowd, I don't think you should be allowed to for safety's sake.