First Amendment question:

[Fire Walk With Me]

"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."

So:

"Congress shall make no law...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."

So if Congress shall not do so, how is it in the power of city governance? How are they able to ignore the Constitution? Is there precedent anywhere saying that they cannot?

[Motown_Johnny]

1. it is the "you can't scream fire in a crowded theater" argument

they claim public safety issues that trump free speech

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. Screaming "Bank fraud!" must be the same thing.

[meow2u3]

3. The state and local prohibition on denying or curtailing free speech, etc.

...are covered under the 14th amendment.

A lot of city ordinances were struck down for vagueness and overbreadth because of the 14th Amendment, such as laws against loitering, camping, etc.

[TheWraith]

5. That's not quite true. The bill of rights is "incorporated" against states and localities...

...based on the 14th Amendment, which is not the same thing as those things falling under the 14th Amendment specifically. Although a lot of people (myself included) consider the principle of "selective incorporation" (i.e. saying that X amendments apply to the states, and Y amendments don't yet because it hasn't been decided that they do) is pretty ridiculous and archaic.

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. Thanks for that, I'll look into it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Section 1...

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's quite vague. Quite.

Law itself must be screwed up, to allow abrogation of Constitutional rights by anyone at any time.

[TheWraith]

4. Because all of the bill of rights is subject to what are called "reasonable restrictions."

Even when under "strict scrutiny" (a constitutional law term of art), government is allowed to restrict certain things where there is considered to be a clear interest. That's why you can't claim, for instance, a second amendment guarantee of owning an automatic weapon.

[Capitalocracy]

8. Freedom of speech > freedom from tents.

That's what it comes down to, if you ask me. Public health and safety concerns are a blatant fabrication, and the idea that we have a right to tent-free and democracy-free parks is absurd when compared to the First Amendment right to free speech.

[kudzu22]

9. Time, place and manner

I'm no lawyer but I believe the Supreme Court has upheld that state & local governments can have reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of free speech. I don't think OWS has a legal leg to stand on, but that's ok. The point has been made. It's a movement, not an event.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Supremacy clause

and it will be sorely tested.

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Supremacy clause

and it will be sorely tested.

:hi: