Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Still ‘NO LAW’ Against Free Speech (editorial on Sheehan/SOTU)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 10:06 PM
Original message
Still ‘NO LAW’ Against Free Speech (editorial on Sheehan/SOTU)
Editorial Still ‘NO LAW’ Against Free Speech By BECKY O'MALLEY

Thanks, Cindy Sheehan, for giving us a nice hook for one of our periodic lectures on why everyone should love the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Here’s what it says:

“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.”

Justice Hugo Black used to holler at doubters “that means NO LAW!” — nothing, for instance, like saying that Cindy couldn’t wear a t-shirt with the number of American soldiers dead in Iraq printed on the front to the State of the Union address. Congress didn’t pass any such law, but that didn’t stop the Capitol police from thinking they had. Even the police have finally, belatedly, figured it out, perhaps helped by the Congressman whose wife was also reprimanded for expressing a pro-government point of view on her own t-shirt. Mrs. Congressperson, however, was not arrested, though Cindy was.

Subsequent amendments and interpretations have extended the prohibition on restricting speech to all government bodies. The government, in any of its multifarious manifestations (federal, state, local) may not restrict the content of political speech, period, and it has to watch its step in trying to stop other kinds of speech as well. The City of Berkeley learned this lesson a few years ago, expensively, by taking a city law which tried to keep citizens from begging for money in undesired spots, like near ATMs, as far as the federal appeals court. Berkeley’s own judge Claudia Wilken, at the request of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued an injunction against the enforcement of the Berkeley ordinance because it purported to regulate the content of panhandlers’ speech.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=02-03-06&storyID=23357
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WearyOne2 Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's important that Cindy sues
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1620rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Constitution??....
....why that's just a God-damned piece of paper! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC