Man arrested for wearing Occupy Jacket- free speech doesn't exist anymore

[Dragonbreathp9d]

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[teddy51]

1. Wonderful fucking country we now live in, isn't it? This should be an interesting test

to our freedoms, when this comes to trial.

[jberryhill]

6. Conduct inside the building is within the court's sole jurisdiction to establish rules

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]

9. They could have just as easily chosen to ignor this, but they didn't and that puts our

freedom of speech closer to the toilet bowel. They chose to make an example of this person.

[jberryhill]

10. How do you think cases like Cohen v. California get made?

Someone is going to make an example out of something, for sure.

[teddy51]

13. And I take it by your reponses that you agree with this as well! n/t

[jberryhill]

15. Really?

Did you READ Cohen v California?

I'm betting not.

[teddy51]

16. Why would I? That wasn't the question in my post. n/t

[jberryhill]

18. You mean, do I agree with "this"?

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]

22. Your problem is, you think case law rules and is always correct and I disagree. This guy

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]

23. Lol, I think you'd better read the case

...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]

24. Whatever! And his jacket said nothing close to that, so should not have been called out. n/t

[unapatriciated]

39. You do realize he is agreeing with you and

providing a Supreme Court ruling that backs it up.

[Dawson Leery]

2. LEO's are notoriously conservative.

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]

3. pigs thugging for the 1 percent....

eom

[Bonobo]

4. This is really sad. I am sorry for Americans.

All that tax money to "protect your liberties" doesn't seem to have been well spent at all.

[boston bean]

5. Abe saw the whole thing.

he's really sad.

[jberryhill]

7. Abe? That's Justice John Marshall

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]

12. thanks! I thought it was Abe Lincoln!

but there you were to correct me again!

What would I ever do without you!?

[jberryhill]

19. I shudder to think

You might hurt yourself.

[boston bean]

21. don't concern yourself too much.

i've lived this long without putting myself in the hosptial.

[sarcasmo]

8. Police State.

[Kaleko]

11. The "outlawed" jacket Scott Fitzgerald was wearing

while taking a tour of the Supreme Court building.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Oh bullshit! You don't protest at courthouses...

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]

17. Actually there are people protesting AT the Supreme Court all of the time

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]

30. Yeah, outside. There are protests every day in DC, but...

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]

38. Unless it is a shit load of money.

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]

20. According to the guy who uploaded the video,

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]

31. OK, but stretching the definition of "protest"...

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]

43. What? Are you claiming that wearing a political shirt but not protesting becomes protesting simply

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]

47. Sorta. Think about it for a while.

[Hosnon]

52. That's absurd. You do realize that that gives the police the authority to

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]

55. Call me a treasonous bastard today because I say that's BS.

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]

26. The thing of it is, he was not in that half of the world

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]

34. So, in our country, can you tell me how far you...

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]

54. You are certainly making a case for illustrating the one rather than the other...

"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]

35. But...but...the law says no protesting inside the court house.

So you agree with the police decision. Right?

[Angry Dragon]

50. Nope, not in the least

[_ed_]

28. Why the fuck not?

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]

36. You, too-- tell me how well it went the last time you...

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]

41. Funny. I always thought that "freedom" INCLUDED........

"...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_]

44. "Shooting your mouth off?"

"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]

46. How'd that work for ya at the last traffic stop?

[_ed_]

51. Can you cite the part of the First Amendment

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]

32. You might enjoy the Fascist boot of ...

.. 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]

37. This is the best one yet! "The Fascist boot..

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]

40. What's "bullshit" is your argument.

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]

42. Somewhere above I started thinking abut how...

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]

25. fascist fucks

[butterfly77]

27. Since Obama was elected...

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]

29. Man arrested for attempting to protest inside courthouse - free speech doing OK.

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]

33. As soon as I saw the thread title...

...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]

45. I don't know how anyone can watch that and not be creeped out.

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]

48. Best not wear Occupy underware when you go through a TSA check point too.

[MinervaX]

49. Police State USA

But a Lady Gaga T-shirt would have been perfectly fine.

[Zorra]

53. So if someone wears a displayed religious cross pendant on a necklace, will they be accosted,

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]

56. We need to get ready for major non-violent resistance again.

I'm old and sickly, but I would be up for it.