first amendment question

Is there legal precendent to support the claim that our right to protest does in fact supercede other rights? or is weighted more heavily in the eyes of the law? We know that free speech is malleable: we cannot "yell fire in a crowded theater" because in that instance our free speech is outweighed by other concerns. But haven't courts also determined in certain cases that our right to petition the govt for grievances outweighs other concerns?

occupyideas said:

Is there legal precendent to support the claim that our right to protest does in fact supercede other rights? or is weighted more heavily in the eyes of the law? We know that free speech is malleable: we cannot "yell fire in a crowded theater" because in that instance our free speech is outweighed by other concerns. But haven't courts also determined in certain cases that our right to petition the govt for grievances outweighs other concerns?

Click to expand...

Sorry, this forum is for US law questions only.

but aside from the issue that you ignored the request to provide your state (and this is a federal issue anyway), your right to protest does not supersede other rights. The government does have the right to put controls on a protest including but not limited to: requiring a permit, time of protest, place of protest, and size of group

justalayman said:

but aside from the issue that you ignored the request to provide your state (and this is a federal issue anyway), your right to protest does not supersede other rights. The government does have the right to put controls on a protest including but not limited to: requiring a permit, time of protest, place of protest, and size of group

Click to expand...

And private property owners have the right to control what goes on, on their property, and the right to determine who can be on their property. The right to protest cannot supersede that either.

thank you

Apologies for not posting state. CA. Did not because we were looking for US Fed. Court precedent. So there are no cases that you know of which give more weight to free speech rights than other rights (we're talking public land here only)? We know the govt has decided it can put controls on free speech. We referenced it in our original post. This was not our question. In fact, implicit in decisions to limit free speech is the idea that the first amendment is malleable. Thus our question: in which cases have justices decided peoples' rights to free speech outweigh other rights? We know these cases exist. We just can't remember what they are and we'd be grateful for whatever assistance anyone could provide.

occupyideas said:

Apologies for not posting state. CA. Did not because I was looking for US Fed. Court precedent. So there are no cases that you know of which give more weight to free speech rights than other rights (we're talking public land here only)?

Click to expand...

**A: are you talking about eminent domain and a taking? Your post is confusing.

occupyideas said:

Apologies for not posting state. CA. Did not because we were looking for US Fed. Court precedent. So there are no cases that you know of which give more weight to free speech rights than other rights (we're talking public land here only)? We know the govt has decided it can put controls on free speech. We referenced it in our original post. This was not our question. In fact, implicit in decisions to limit free speech is the idea that the first amendment is malleable. Thus our question: in which cases have justices decided peoples' rights to free speech outweigh other rights? We know these cases exist. We just can't remember what they are and we'd be grateful for whatever assistance anyone could provide.

Click to expand...

google scholar is where you want to go

We do not do anyone's homework but our own.

occupyideas said:

Apologies for not posting state. CA. Did not because we were looking for US Fed. Court precedent. So there are no cases that you know of which give more weight to free speech rights than other rights (we're talking public land here only)? We know the govt has decided it can put controls on free speech. We referenced it in our original post. This was not our question. In fact, implicit in decisions to limit free speech is the idea that the first amendment is malleable. Thus our question: in which cases have justices decided peoples' rights to free speech outweigh other rights? We know these cases exist. We just can't remember what they are and we'd be grateful for whatever assistance anyone could provide.

Click to expand...

"Free speech" and gathering to protest are not necessarily the same thing. One person has the right to say anything at all that they like as long as it does not cause harm to another. Large numbers of people gathering to protest could be dangerous to themselves and others if the wrong "spirit" is involved.

Freedom of assembly (another right in the bill of rights) is not necessarily the same as gathering to protest either.

However...the biggie is that freedom of assembly is not the freedom to erect tent villages on public or private property with no regards for proper sanitation and other factors.

If a group holds a two hour protest, every day for two months on public property, its unlikely that it would ever become an issue. If that same group erects a tent village and occupies that public property for two months straight, then other issues are going to arise. Based on my studies of the constitution, erecting a tent village on public or private property has absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of speech"...OR "freedom of assembly".

No single freedom that we have under the constitution usurps a freedom belonging to another group or class of people. Freedom of speech is no more important than any other freedom. However some other freedoms can be more important than freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, in some very specific circumstances.

I sympathize with the occupancy protesters but they have another freedom that they can use that would effect more change than what they are doing, and that is the right to VOTE.

Barely half of the US citizens who are eligible to vote bother to register, and only about half of the registered voters actually vote.

So...if you really want change, find a candidate that you believe will effect change, and rally around that candidate and vote. If every eligible voter registered and voted, and did it ALWAYS, things would be different than they are today.

We wouldn't have career senators and representatives if everyone voted, unless they truly represented their people...and we wouldn't have career state legislatures if everyone paid attention to the issues and voted either.

We have a system of government that is truly inclusive of "we the people". The problem is that "we the people" haven't bothered to exercise our rights for a darned long time.

thank you for your responses, but still looking for precedent

1) We can assure you that we haven't needed to do homework in a long time
2) Thank you for your reasoned answer. This statement "...with no regards for proper sanitation and other factors" reveals, however, that you've not looked at media coverage of these protests critically. Having been to several encampments (some of our members were skeptical of them), we can tell you that a great deal was done to maintain health and safety. When, as has been documented even in by MSM, police began sending released criminals and unfortunate people with psych. problems to the camps, this became harder to do, but the tireless, often inspirational efforts of these protesters to deal with even this have not been recognized by the MSM.
3) Protest has never worked if it has been convenient. City ordinances requiring permits, or restricting protesters to certain spaces, are not necessarily constitutional, and we're sure courts have said as much in the past. If you can help us find that precedent, thank you. If not, even as we value your lesson in electoral politics, please know that we've given that lesson before. We're now joining those who would vote, yes, but who would also take other steps to raise public consciousness and affect political change.

occupyideas said:

Apologies for not posting state. CA. Did not because we were looking for US Fed. Court precedent. So there are no cases that you know of which give more weight to free speech rights than other rights (we're talking public land here only)? We know the govt has decided it can put controls on free speech. We referenced it in our original post. This was not our question. In fact, implicit in decisions to limit free speech is the idea that the first amendment is malleable. Thus our question: in which cases have justices decided peoples' rights to free speech outweigh other rights? We know these cases exist. We just can't remember what they are and we'd be grateful for whatever assistance anyone could provide.

Click to expand...

Lexis.
Westlaw.
Google.

Three right off the bat.

search terms

Thanks. Tried lexis, google, and google scholar, but we don't really know what search terms would work best. Any ideas?

Contact an attorney versed in civil rights law. Oh yeah, they're part of the group you're against. Sorry.

Zigner said:

Contact an attorney versed in civil rights law. Oh yeah, they're part of the group you're against. Sorry.

Click to expand...

^^^ oh, sweet irony.

occupyideas said:

1) We can assure you that we haven't needed to do homework in a long time
2) Thank you for your reasoned answer. This statement "...with no regards for proper sanitation and other factors" reveals, however, that you've not looked at media coverage of these protests critically. Having been to several encampments (some of our members were skeptical of them), we can tell you that a great deal was done to maintain health and safety. When, as has been documented even in by MSM, police began sending released criminals and unfortunate people with psych. problems to the camps, this became harder to do, but the tireless, often inspirational efforts of these protesters to deal with even this have not been recognized by the MSM.
3) Protest has never worked if it has been convenient. City ordinances requiring permits, or restricting protesters to certain spaces, are not necessarily constitutional, and we're sure courts have said as much in the past. If you can help us find that precedent, thank you. If not, even as we value your lesson in electoral politics, please know that we've given that lesson before. We're now joining those who would vote, yes, but who would also take other steps to raise public consciousness and affect political change.

Click to expand...

This response tells me that you have no interest in effecting REAL change....so I am done with helping you. You seriously believe that the police that the police sent mentally ill people or recently released criminals to your camps? That is not only irrational but foolish.

If you want to effect REAL change then maybe the rest of the country would begin to take you seriously. However, keep up with those kinds of arguments and you will continue to be nothing more than marginal.