How is it that the 1st amendment is so completely ignored and abused?

[Warren Stupidity]

How is it possible that our right to peaceably assemble is licensed and regulated and contained and corralled and tear gassed and beaten and pepper sprayed and shot in the head with an unidentified projectile and tasered with impunity?

What at all is ambiguous about this sentence:

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.


How is it possible that a court that rejects gun control and campaign finance reform as violations of the bill of rights, could uphold the suppression of this most fundamental right?

[atreides1]

1. This isn't being done by the US Congress

This is being done by local governments...that seem to have city ordinances that over rule the US Constitution!

And I'm not sure of the US Supreme Court has received a case pertaining to this.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. The 14th Amendment effectively applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

There are rulings to that effect.

[former9thward]

12. The US Supreme Court has had scores of First Amend cases.

The have away held the 1st A allows reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the right to speech and assembly. Some local ordinances are upheld and some are not. It just depends on whether the restrictions are "reasonable" according to the court.

[EFerrari]

19. This is likely being co-ordinated at DHS.

This is not localities acting on their own co-incidentally.

[LiberalEsto]

22. I suspect ALEC is behind this nt

[RKP5637]

2. IMO because the plutocracy now runs sooo deep in this country that what

was once taken for granted has been usurped by TPTB. And, it's going to get worse. Here is a response sent to me that I think sums it all up rather well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2312874&mesg_id=2313160

[redqueen]

10. Yes... that does sum it up well. (nt)

[ixion]

3. Because our government no longer sees itself as a government 'of the people'

and governing at their consent. They do, in fact, see We, the People as a threat.

[RKP5637]

6. I don't even feel part of this country anymore ... I am part of "we the people" but

for the most part not represented.

[PoliticAverse]

4. The court allows 'reasonable restrictions' on gun rights and campaign financing...

just as they allow 'reasonable' restrictions on public spaces such as restrictions on permanently occupying or sleeping in a public park.

[Pab Sungenis]

8. The Roberts Court has effectively done away with those reasonable restrictions.

I doubt they'd do the same with actual free speech.

[PoliticAverse]

11. There are still lots of 'reasonable' restrictions on both...

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/laws/

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml

[JDPriestly]

15. The Second Amendment is a little less categorical than the First.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<8>

The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.<9> The English Bill of Rights emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants William III and Mary II, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.<10> The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.<11> In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.<12>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Founding Fathers specifically tied the right to bear arms to the people's duty to defend their government. That is what the militia did at the time of the Revolution -- defended the independent government of the US.

First Militia Act of 1792

The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the President to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe."<2> The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act".<3> This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion in opposition to the judicial collection of debts and taxes.
Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.<4> Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

The First Amendment prohibits the passage of laws that would ABRIDGE (limit???) the right of free speech.

The only condition on the right of free assembly is that it must be "peaceable." That is not a synonym for "peaceful" meaning quiet. Why? Because assemblies are by nature noisy. You can have a silent assembly, but you will not be able to practice free speech at a silent assembly.

The OWS movement is marked by its limited use of loudspeakers. It is, as large assemblies go, both peaceable and peaceful.

The Supreme Court decisions permit time, place and manner regulations. I think the Supreme Court is wrong about that especially in times of emergency, and I would argue that the only reason OWS exists is that we have a national emergency -- and emergency caused by corruption and repression.

I don't think OWS intended to target the repressive nature of our government. I think that the oppression came as rather a surprise. After all, OWS is protesting on behalf of state governments, pension funds, etc.

But, OWS managed to reveal to many in the public that beneath the facade of polite attempts to appear "liberal," our governments will not tolerate the exercises of our rights of free speech or assembly without abridging those rights with time, place and manner restrictions.

The government will argue that utter free speech and assembly totally unabridged is impractical, that it would result in people competing for limited space. The problem with that is that it gives the right freely and generously to those with money to buy space for their speech and deprives those without money of that same freedom.

The time, place and manner restrictions are by nature discriminatory against the poor and individualistic who cannot pay and respond spontaneously rather than in a regimented, organized fashion.

[KansDem]

5. Only one in 1,000 Americans could name all five freedoms of the First Amendment.

Simpsons Outpace U.S. Constitution

(AP) Americans apparently know more about "The Simpsons" TV show than about the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the TV cartoon family, according to a survey.

The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.

--more--
CBS News

[Fumesucker]

9. Because the only *real* speech is $$$$

:shrug:

[RKP5637]

17. Yep, that's the bottom line! n/t

[alc]

13. you got me.

Not sure how anyone could interpret the 1st to mean that anyone has the right to any assemble a on piece of public property for any amount of time they want even if it keeps other people from accessing that public property for other legal purposes. Probably the same people who think the 2nd allows anyone to be able to carry any concealed firearm into any public building.

[Taverner]

14. Everyone loves free speech, until someone disagrees with them...

I've seen that on this very board

[mrdmk]

16. Hear, hear! K &R

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Well sure, and I am real uncomfortable with protesters brandishing weapons,

and yet somehow the state never saw cause to stop rightwing expressions of 2nd amendment rights alongside their 1st amendment rights. Why is that?

Corporations had their free speech rights recently and dramatically re-enforced by the USSC. I'm not comfortable with that, but along with the ACLU, I'd prefer a full enforcement of the 1st even if it means corporations get to gush a tsunami of propaganda supporting their little oligarchy every election cycle over the public airwaves. I just want my individual access to the public arena protected too.

[Taverner]

28. What's funny is that if a single OWS occupier had a knife, the RW echo chamber would be up in arms

But yet Teabaggers can carry semi-autos to their racist hatefests

[AsahinaKimi]

18. Maybe the 1st amendment

is for Republcians only, after all, don't they own the flag? Don't they own GOD? Don't they own the media? Don't their 1% own this country?

Bastards all..

[Jim Lane]

20. Zuccotti Park is private property, so the First Amendment doesn't apply.

The First Amendment doesn't mean that bunch of anti-abortion zealots have to be allowed to hold a demonstration on the grounds of a clinic.

As for cities where the Occupy gathering is in a public park, other posters have correctly noted that the First Amendment permits reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on the time, place, or manner of speech. For example, a town may legally prohibit people from blaring their messages from sound trucks in residential neighborhoods at three in the morning.

Public parks are established, at taxpayer expense, for various purposes. Those purposes would be defeated if Occupy or the Tea Party or the Scientologists or any other group could just take over the park with a permanent presence, thus excluding everyone else from picnicking or walking their dogs there or just enjoying the open space, grass, and trees.

For that reason, I think such a restriction is reasonable and therefore constitutional.

Of course, the government's action must be content-neutral. If the Tea Party was allowed to stage a long encampment in a public park, but now the Occupy protestors are treated differently, that would show a First Amendment violation.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Actually by covenent zucotti is a public space inside an

area of private property. This was the arrangement made with the city by quite a few developers - they got to build, the city got public spaces like zucotti park. The owners cannot rescind the public access to this space, and the space does not fall under the direct control of the city as does, for example, central park. As part of the deal these spaces are open 24 hours a day, every day of the week, every week of the year. This park is explicitly a public space, even though it is owned by a non-public entity.

[TygrBright]

21. It inconveniences our Beloved Oligarchs. Of course it will be abused and ignored. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

23. Human rights are inconvenient to those who want total power.

:mad:

[ljm2002]

24. We allow it, that's how...

...we've become numb to the many encroachments of government power into our lives...

When they first started using so-called "Free Speech Zones", that was a clue right there.

When the press agreed to becoming embedded with the military, rather than being free to report on the wars independently, that was a clue.

When no one batted an eye that our Presidents started wars without conferring with Congress, when we heard the authorities and pundits say "We are at war!" to justify all manner of limitations on our freedoms -- even when there was NO declaration of war from Congress, as required in the Constitution -- that was a clue.

The Constitution seems to have more that is ignored these days than is followed. Standing army? Check. Prior restraint on free speech? Check. Unitary executive powers? Check. and on and on...

It's the people who have allowed it, and have allowed ourselves to become so divided that many think we're headed for a civil war. Whereas the real war is between the .01% and the rest of us.

OWS is trying to push these issues, and good on them for doing it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. "Freedom cannot be granted. It must be taken." Max Sterner

[loyalsister]

27. Is it possible that other people matter?

It seems to me that if the right to peaceably assemble may conflict with the right of people to go about their daily business, it is entirely reasonable to enact some restrictions. If our rights were unconditional, the opportunity to express them at all would be severely limited.
ie. the Citizens United unconditional expression of "speech" implicitly interferes with the rights of people who can offer less "speech" to be heard.
There is surely a way to keep the spirit of this movement going with an shift in strategy. Confrontation and antagonism only hurts this cause.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. The right to peaceably assemble is explicitly enumerated

and is thus superior to other unenumerated rights, such as this odd right to go about undisturbed by people expressing their political opinions in public.