Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

01 Jan 2010, 1:16 am

"Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian", and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.

The most prominent examples were those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration. Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope has been greatly expanded.

Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits."

Excuse me?!?!?!?!?! I thought our entire country was a "free speech zone". What the Hell was I thinking?!?!?! (the last sentence is sarcasm) I will now quote the first amendment in its entirety:



"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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for any redress of grievances."


What does the first amendment of the US Constitution mean?! It means that the government is not only prohibited from telling you what religion you can or can't be or whether you can exercise it or not, it also means that they are not allowed to restrict the freedom of speech. The mere existence of "Free Speech Zones" offends me!! ! Our government has lost any and all respect (and regard) for the constitution...


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


Letum
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

01 Jan 2010, 2:53 am

1) Step into the free speech booth
2) Close the sound-proof door
3) Exercise your right to free speech*
4) Open the door an leave the booth for the next citizen

*Please not that free speaking may be recorded for security reasons.

Communal events may use the adjacent free speech pen.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Jan 2010, 3:13 am

Should the Constitution be interpreted to include the internet?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jan 2010, 8:35 am

LiberalJustice wrote:


What does the first amendment of the US Constitution mean?! It means that the government is not only prohibited from telling you what religion you can or can't be or whether you can exercise it or not, it also means that they are not allowed to restrict the freedom of speech. The mere existence of "Free Speech Zones" offends me!! ! Our government has lost any and all respect (and regard) for the constitution...


Acts of free speech which are peaceful petitions for redress of grievance are specifically protected. Hence the "tea parties" as long as they are orderly are ueber legal. They are what Free Speech is all about.

Any public area (such as a park) where people can gather is legally a "free speech zone". However not all forms of speech are protected by the first amendment. For example, inciting to riot and violence by exhortation and alarm, or the use of "fighting words" is not legally protected. Lynching parties are strictly against the law. Such acts of speech are subject to legal punishment, both civil and criminal. The famous example of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" comes to mind. By the way, if there IS a fire in a crowded theater, it would be depraved indifference if one did not give a warning.

The U.S. is a free speech zone in public areas (as long as traffic is not obstructed). One needs a permit to have a parade, but legally, having a parade is a non-discriminatory privilege.

ruveyn



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

01 Jan 2010, 9:26 am

LiberalJustice wrote:
"Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits."

Excuse me?!?!?!?!?! I thought our entire country was a "free speech zone".


This is the first I have heard of such zones, and I am a Vietnam-era veteran! But yes, today we can have our "rights" only as long as we do not really try to exercise them. And of course, the "right to be heard" does not mean others are required to listen.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

01 Jan 2010, 4:54 pm

I followed the DNC and RNC two years ago visa vi radio hosts on site doing interviews.

From what I remember about these 'free speech' pens though, they were much more prominent at the DNC than the RNC - not to censor the republicans, they just had a heck of a muppet show outside, something a lot closer to The Burning Man than what you'd think of a traditional party convention. The first I heard much of these was Michael Medved interviewing Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, they didn't go into it in great detail but, from the indication I got these zones were more to filter out disruption or give people organized venues for breaking out the soap box.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

01 Jan 2010, 5:39 pm

0) take care not to select the termination booth beside the free speech booth
1) Step into the free speech booth
2) Close the sound-proof door
3) Exercise your right to free speech*
4) Open the door an leave the booth for the next citizen

Just had to amend your thing with some humour.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

01 Jan 2010, 7:33 pm

The Supreme Court ruled that the government can require permits and set place, time, duration limits to ensure first amendment expressions do not cause problems.

The "free speech zone" is a blatant abomination of this practice as it enables the government to sequester protesters to places where their free speech is nothing more than "preaching to the choir." If you can't get in front of the people you are protesting against or the people you are trying to reach, the protest is meaningless. I don't know how much of a legal challenge has been brought up against these, but they're still going on.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

01 Jan 2010, 7:49 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled that the government can require permits and set place, time, duration limits to ensure first amendment expressions do not cause problems.

The "free speech zone" is a blatant abomination of this practice as it enables the government to sequester protesters to places where their free speech is nothing more than "preaching to the choir." If you can't get in front of the people you are protesting against or the people you are trying to reach, the protest is meaningless. I don't know how much of a legal challenge has been brought up against these, but they're still going on.


"Your honor I would like to call my next witness to the stand"

"Alright, he may give his statements from free speech room 45. Have the bailiff come tell us when hes done talking."


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jan 2010, 8:14 pm

Sand wrote:
Should the Constitution be interpreted to include the internet?


In the sense that the government ought not to impose prior restraints on what is expressed.

By extension the internet is effectively the press.

ruveyn



LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

01 Jan 2010, 8:24 pm

ruveyn wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:


What does the first amendment of the US Constitution mean?! It means that the government is not only prohibited from telling you what religion you can or can't be or whether you can exercise it or not, it also means that they are not allowed to restrict the freedom of speech. The mere existence of "Free Speech Zones" offends me!! ! Our government has lost any and all respect (and regard) for the constitution...


Acts of free speech which are peaceful petitions for redress of grievance are specifically protected. Hence the "tea parties" as long as they are orderly are ueber legal. They are what Free Speech is all about.

Any public area (such as a park) where people can gather is legally a "free speech zone". However not all forms of speech are protected by the first amendment. For example, inciting to riot and violence by exhortation and alarm, or the use of "fighting words" is not legally protected. Lynching parties are strictly against the law. Such acts of speech are subject to legal punishment, both civil and criminal. The famous example of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" comes to mind. By the way, if there IS a fire in a crowded theater, it would be depraved indifference if one did not give a warning.

The U.S. is a free speech zone in public areas (as long as traffic is not obstructed). One needs a permit to have a parade, but legally, having a parade is a non-discriminatory privilege.

ruveyn
I can understand prohibiting death threats and riots, I mean peaceful protests or any type of free speech besides the two I mentioned at the beginning of this sentence.


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Jan 2010, 9:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
Should the Constitution be interpreted to include the internet?


In the sense that the government ought not to impose prior restraints on what is expressed.

By extension the internet is effectively the press.

ruveyn


Although the government may not exert too much influence (at least in the USA) on the internet, the providers certainly do and that could be a problem.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

01 Jan 2010, 11:59 pm

Other than the political aspect, Free Speech Zones have nothing to do with preventing inciteful speech, but rather its the "over-regulation" of free speech.

The idea flows well with the topic of gun control.

As the "joke" goes, "Let people own anything they want, ban the sale of ammunition."

The state has a right to require permits for public places as to prevent obstruction of traffic or other potential dangers caused by a sufficient number of people gathering in one place. However, up to now, such permits and other "restrictions" were limited to what was "reasonable" for public safety without needlessly impeding the practice of free speech.

Free Speech Zones are often fenced in areas (easy for the cops as you need less men), but they look like mini-jails and in my mind are intimidating. They can be located where the authorities want them (easily obstructing the goal of the free expression by putting it someplace out of sight). They also result in automatic detention and arrest of people action OUTSIDE of the designated areas. This is perhaps the worst part. It implies that freedom of speech is confined to state-defined locales, which is an abomination of what the First Amendment is all about.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Jan 2010, 1:21 am

Here's something I have to wonder about - I don't know the answer to this, it may be easy to find out. In a situation where lets say someone had a party, on their own land, they have full right of refusal for anyone who shows up, tries to crash the party, or misbehave. Typically you can have festivals, on public property, where I'd think the same rules can be applied.

That said though, while both the DNC and RNC were events in connection to government officials and political groups, were the DNC and RNC truly governmental functions in substance? If a young republicans or young democrats group got together; that's a private event. If Ron Paul goes and delivers a speech - similar scenario. By that rule, I remember, when President George H W Bush came to my town when I was about 12, democratic picketors were ordered to leave - a practice which has to cut both ways as no real scandal was made of it. That said, if the DNC or RNC are in substance public but essentially privately funded events (much like a county fair or something of that nature), do the same rules apply as if it were someone's right to hold a demonstration in Central Park NYC for a cause? Technically it seems like part of the argument is discouraging demonstrations within demonstrations, such as a pro-choice rally would not be in favor of a pro-life rally within its own boundaries - next venue down they couldn't do anything about it but within their boundaries I think they would have the ability to call what kind of behavior is allowed or disallowed at their rally.

These are some of the questions we really need to think about though before we come to the conclusion that free speech zones of this sort are either nothing or something in terms of a threat to future liberties and if they are a threat, how much of a right any group or organizational meeting has to regulate the conduct of their own organized assembly.



PunkyKat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,492
Location: Kalahari Desert

08 Jan 2010, 5:12 pm

Because Obama and the liberal party are trying to turn this country socialist.


_________________
I'm not weird, you're just too normal.


psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

08 Jan 2010, 5:16 pm

we dont have any free speech zones over here :(

i am jealous of your freedom.