General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMan arrested for wearing Occupy Jacket- free speech doesn't exist anymore
&feature=youtube_gdata_playerteddy51
(3,491 posts)to our freedoms, when this comes to trial.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The issues would be:
1. Whether wearing the jacket constitutes a political demonstration;
2. Whether a blanket ban on political demonstration inside the Supreme Court building itself is a reasonable time, place and manner restriction.
COHEN v. CALIFORNIA, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) is always good for a spin:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=15
teddy51
(3,491 posts)freedom of speech closer to the toilet bowel. They chose to make an example of this person.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Someone is going to make an example out of something, for sure.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Did you READ Cohen v California?
I'm betting not.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yes, I agree with Cohen v California.
If you have other case law relating to someone wearing a jacket with a slogan on it while inside a courthouse, I'm all ears.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)was wearing a jacket that said, "Occupy Everywhere" on the back. If this is enough to get you arrested in the US, then we have a serious problem with our rights in this country. If you can't see this, then they must be really missing you in the Dungeon.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...before you embarrass yourself further.
In Cohen v California, the US Supreme Court rules that the arrest of a man inside a courthouse wearing a jacket which said "Fuck the Draft" was an unlawful restriction of free speech.
You DISAGREE with that?
Okay, bub, lock 'em up.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)providing a Supreme Court ruling that backs it up.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Read these ugly comments about the UC Davis pepper spray case.
http://www.policeone.com/Crowd-Control/articles/4966948-Pepper-sprayed-UC-Davis-protesters-wont-be-charged/
The teabaggers were allowed to bring loaded guns in plain site into the public square without a single arrest being made.
Cops protect the powerful, OWS is fighting the powerful. Pay protections for cops is not my problem.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)eom
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)All that tax money to "protect your liberties" doesn't seem to have been well spent at all.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)he's really sad.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It's the museum in the basement of the Supreme Court.
The empty chair in the glass case at the other end of the room is his chair.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)but there you were to correct me again!
What would I ever do without you!?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You might hurt yourself.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)i've lived this long without putting myself in the hosptial.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Kaleko
(4,986 posts)while taking a tour of the Supreme Court building.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)you just don't. Nothing good ever comes of it. And even less at the Supreme Court. What dumbasses ever came up with this idea?
BTW, if he pulled any such shit in a museum, statehouse, or Broadway theater he's be out on his ass in a minute. And they might not act as nice as these cops are.
And if he did it in the half the world that REALLY has no freedoms, he'd likely be dead by now, along with whoever's holding the camera.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The relevant law when one is IN the court building, I'm not so sure about.
The anti-choicers would certainly come in from the cold.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)does anyone notice?
Anyone can protest all they want if it makes them feel good, but there might be a problem when it becomes counterproductive, and I've noticed that most courts tend to have a very dim view of anyone besides a lawyer with a brief trying to influence their decisions.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)On the other hand, the resale value of the jacket won't pay for a tea party or help the kids get a job.
http://btx3.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/justice-for-sale-clarence-thomas-antonin-scalia-and-bribes/
Kaleko
(4,986 posts)Fitzgerald was not protesting at all - just wearing his Occupy Everything jacket.
From the YouTube description:
Uploaded by rattusnorv6 on Jan 20, 2012
TO CLARIFY, since many people seem to think we were staging some sort of one man protest inside the supreme court, we were NOT PROTESTING! We were very quietly and respectfully walking around the building after going through security during open hours. He was wearing the jacket upon entry, and he was wearing the jacket when one cop decided to make a big stink about it. That is all, there was no mic checking, no hollering, no signs, no "parading" and absolutely no protesting whatsoever inside the building.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)if a cop or security has a talk with you, you pretty much do what they say or you accept the consequences.
To do otherwise, you better have a damn good reason and it becomes a "protest." that's pretty much the way it is anywhere in the world I've ever been.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)because a police officer accuses you of protesting and you deny it?
If so, that's quite a lot of power over reality you are giving LEOs.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Hosnon
(7,800 posts)make anything they want a protest, right? (Simply by threatening to arrest - whether justified or not.)
Therefore, any place where protesting is constitutionally prohibited, the police can arrest anyone they want.
"Think about it for a while."
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)So what if the cop tells you to stand on your head and walk along on your hands, or strip naked for the camera?
Come on, really, some rules are just downright stupid. Like that one.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)he was in this country and subject to our laws
I have to wonder about you.
Do you want this country to lead or follow??
What better place to exercise your rights than in a court house??
If you have limited rights in a court house then you have limited rights everywhere.....
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)got the last time you explained the law to a cop? Told him how to do his job?
There's righteous protest and there's being an asshole, even if it hurts. Take the fucking jacket off and be on your way.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"There's righteous protest and there's being an asshole..."
You are certainly making a case for illustrating the one rather than the other... however, I'm fully certain you'll rationalize your own behavior as we often hold others to higher standards than we hold ourselves.
randome
(34,845 posts)So you agree with the police decision. Right?
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)_ed_
(1,734 posts)Can you cite me the part of the First Amendment that says I can't protest at a courthouse? Your entire post is nothing more than a celebration of authoritarianism and advising people to remain sheep.
I love the part at the end where you fantasize about living in North Korea where they'd just kill the protesters.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)explained to the cops how to do their jobs?
I don't fantasize about anything, especially about the difference between freedom and just shooting your mouth off.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)"...just shooting your mouth off." I guess Thomas Paine was just shooting his mouth off when he wrote "Common Sense". Or how about Patrick Henry shooting his mouth off with the "Give me liberty or give me death" speech.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)"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."
You might want to take a long look at the bolded portion. I know that this is a really obscure and seldom-cited area of law and you've probably never seen it before.
"Explained to cops how to do their jobs?" I suppose you've never heard of a city council meeting, an election for a sheriff, or even suing a police department.
If you want to support and praise authoritariansim, that's your right. But don't fucking tell me to shut my mouth in front of some fucking cop. I pay his fucking salary, and I'll say whatever I goddamn please as an American.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)_ed_
(1,734 posts)that precludes free speech at a traffic stop? Last time I got stopped, I had a professional encounter with the officer where I asserted my rights.
Are you saying that if the cop had dragged me out of the car and beat my face in, that he'd be justified? What is your fucking point? That some cops are actually criminals, and don't uphold their oath to follow the laws, including the First Amendment of the Constitution? Of course there are bad cops. We still have the First Amendment regardless of them.
You seem to want to live in some kind of authoritarian fantasy land.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. of the 1% on your neck, but some of us are made of sterner stuff.
Do you even begin to understand how offensive your contention that The Halls of Justice are not the place for Justice? ESPECIALLY the highest Court in the Land?
Wow, just wow.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)of the one percent" is a great line.
But it's just a line, and you could explain just what you've done to show you're made of "sterner stuff." Maybe you could go to traffic court and accuse the cop of lying. They do lie in traffic court, you know.
FWIW, I often tell the story of my days in NYC Criminal Court when I went to answer the arrest warrant mistakenly sent out for me. One judge had a great sense of humor. Ended up costing me 50 bucks, and I was glad to pay it.
Demstud
(298 posts)First of all, he wasn't protesting or making a scene in anyway until the police decided to make an issue of his clothing. Second, we should NEVER use the murderous actions of any foreign dictatorship as a bar for what's acceptable in our country. It's weak and cowardly. I guess peaceful protestors should be happy that they only get beaten and pepper sprayed in America instead of shot in the head? If simply "not being murdered" is all the freedom you aspire to, just about anything else can be justified.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)a simple action can be expanded to a protest under the right conditions.
More to the point, though, is the hyperbolic reaction to this more or less everyday occurrence. Beatings and pepper spray are not approved of, but they are not evidence of a long slide into tyranny. And this incident even less so. Our system is not perfect by any means, but we'll never see a perfect system and ours is not all that bad.
"Freedom" has never been "license" and its limits will be tested on a regular basis or it means nothing.
marasinghe
(1,253 posts)butterfly77
(17,609 posts)I have found out that this country is more nuttier than I thought. I already knew many were crazy during the Reagan years,and GW but really they really have lost their damn minds!!!
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Saying "but I'm protesting" does not give you the right to do what the hell you like. Courthouses need to function. Go protest outside it.
randome
(34,845 posts)...I knew this was going to be yet another hyperbolic OWS thread. Our free speech rights are definitely under fire when the police use the law to arrest a protester.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)And in the SCOTUS building of all places.
For the record, I agree with the concept of time, place, and manner restrictions. Were this guy going through the halls chanting, I'd agree with the police officers' decision. However, simply wearing a shirt should not rise to that level (legally).
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MinervaX
(169 posts)But a Lady Gaga T-shirt would have been perfectly fine.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)and subsequently arrested, if they refuse to remove it? Or is arresting someone with an ☮ccupy jacket an arbitrary act, based solely upon the beliefs and judgment of a cop who does not like Occupy?
It also seems ironic that SCOTUS has made its own law for itself that makes the federal SCOTUS building and grounds a "1st Amendment free zone".
Fuzz
(8,827 posts)I'm old and sickly, but I would be up for it.