First Amendment is in jeopardy

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.

Hyperbole is alive and well as is the First Amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by CharlieFoxtrot:
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.

Hyperbole is alive and well as is the First Amendment.

And that means that you do or do not agree with the action of the Chairman??

[/QUOTE]And that means that you do or do not agree with the action of the Chairman??[/QUOTE]

I do not agree that his actions are an assault on the First Amendment.

Then you may count yourself among those whose lack of knowledge concerning the first Amendment is regrettable. Study up. I suggest you begin by obtaining a copy of Harry Kalvan's landmark work on that subject, entitled, "A Worthy Tradition."

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Then you may count yourself among those whose lack of knowledge concerning the first Amendment is regrettable. Study up. I suggest you begin by obtaining a copy of Harry Kalvan's landmark work on that subject, entitled, "A Worthy Tradition."

Maybe this saga should be added to the next edition. Do you know what I meant by hyperbole in my first response?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Then you may count yourself among those whose lack of knowledge concerning the first Amendment is regrettable. Study up. I suggest you begin by obtaining a copy of Harry Kalvan's landmark work on that subject, entitled, "A Worthy Tradition."

Or you could just read the First Amendment and think for yourself. It's not that complicated.
I doubt the framers of the Constitution studied Harry Kalvan's landmark work. I think Charliefoxtrot can handle that.

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Then you may count yourself among those whose lack of knowledge concerning the first Amendment is regrettable. Study up. I suggest you begin by obtaining a copy of Harry Kalvan's landmark work on that subject, entitled, "A Worthy Tradition."

Or you could just read the First Amendment and think for yourself. It's not that complicated.
I doubt the framers of the Constitution studied Harry Kalvan's landmark work. I think Charliefoxtrot can handle that.

So, by your millimeters-deep sense of reckoning constitutional matters, one need only read what is prescribed in the Constitution on a given matter and that will somehow settle the question of whether, in a given instance, some public official has or has not committed a violation of same. What a poverty of discernment that represents, midnight. Your approach to interpreting that document is about equivalent to that of the nation of Israel in the period of the Judges, when "every man did that which was right in his own sight." The result of that behavior was national idolatry and the result of Howard's casual and careless abuse of the First Amendment in his high-handeded dictum against signs is a form of self-idolatry, wherein he places his shallow and shabby opinion, unsupported by any legal analysis or precedent, against the extensive holdings of a multitude of courts on what kinds of constraints may legally be placed upon speech in public forums.

The very first word in the 1st Amendment, Congress. Congress didn't try to pass any ban on signs in Florence city council meetings, the council chairman did. Unless it's in violation of the state constitution, he can legally do that.

However, it's a pretty dumb move. When you try to shut the people up, the people will usually vote you out. Trying to prevent people from making their opinions known at a council meeting is political suicide.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Then you may count yourself among those whose lack of knowledge concerning the first Amendment is regrettable. Study up. I suggest you begin by obtaining a copy of Harry Kalvan's landmark work on that subject, entitled, "A Worthy Tradition."

Or you could just read the First Amendment and think for yourself. It's not that complicated.
I doubt the framers of the Constitution studied Harry Kalvan's landmark work. I think Charliefoxtrot can handle that.

So, by your millimeters-deep sense of reckoning constitutional matters, one need only read what is prescribed in the Constitution on a given matter and that will somehow settle the question of whether, in a given instance, some public official has or has not committed a violation of same. What a poverty of discernment that represents, midnight. Your approach to interpreting that document is about equivalent to that of the nation of Israel in the period of the Judges, when "every man did that which was right in his own sight." The result of that behavior was national idolatry and the result of Howard's casual and careless abuse of the First Amendment in his high-handeded dictum against signs is a form of self-idolatry, wherein he places his shallow and shabby opinion, unsupported by any legal analysis or precedent, against the extensive holdings of a multitude of courts on what kinds of constraints may legally be placed upon speech in public forums.

Hyperbole squared.

quote:

Originally posted by CharlieFoxtrot:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Then you may count yourself among those whose lack of knowledge concerning the first Amendment is regrettable. Study up. I suggest you begin by obtaining a copy of Harry Kalvan's landmark work on that subject, entitled, "A Worthy Tradition."

Or you could just read the First Amendment and think for yourself. It's not that complicated.
I doubt the framers of the Constitution studied Harry Kalvan's landmark work. I think Charliefoxtrot can handle that.

So, by your millimeters-deep sense of reckoning constitutional matters, one need only read what is prescribed in the Constitution on a given matter and that will somehow settle the question of whether, in a given instance, some public official has or has not committed a violation of same. What a poverty of discernment that represents, midnight. Your approach to interpreting that document is about equivalent to that of the nation of Israel in the period of the Judges, when "every man did that which was right in his own sight." The result of that behavior was national idolatry and the result of Howard's casual and careless abuse of the First Amendment in his high-handeded dictum against signs is a form of self-idolatry, wherein he places his shallow and shabby opinion, unsupported by any legal analysis or precedent, against the extensive holdings of a multitude of courts on what kinds of constraints may legally be placed upon speech in public forums.

Hyperbole squared.

Attempted (and in this case failed)cuteness is the frequent refuge of those who are polemically incompetent, as is clearly the case with you.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Then you may count yourself among those whose lack of knowledge concerning the first Amendment is regrettable. Study up. I suggest you begin by obtaining a copy of Harry Kalvan's landmark work on that subject, entitled, "A Worthy Tradition."

Or you could just read the First Amendment and think for yourself. It's not that complicated.
I doubt the framers of the Constitution studied Harry Kalvan's landmark work. I think Charliefoxtrot can handle that.

So, by your millimeters-deep sense of reckoning constitutional matters, one need only read what is prescribed in the Constitution on a given matter and that will somehow settle the question of whether, in a given instance, some public official has or has not committed a violation of same. What a poverty of discernment that represents, midnight. Your approach to interpreting that document is about equivalent to that of the nation of Israel in the period of the Judges, when "every man did that which was right in his own sight." The result of that behavior was national idolatry and the result of Howard's casual and careless abuse of the First Amendment in his high-handeded dictum against signs is a form of self-idolatry, wherein he places his shallow and shabby opinion, unsupported by any legal analysis or precedent, against the extensive holdings of a multitude of courts on what kinds of constraints may legally be placed upon speech in public forums.

What do you think Harry Kalvan did? I'll bet he read it and told you what he thought it meant. It's not that long and complicated. All I'm saying is, Charliefoxtrot is probably smart enough to understand three lines and make up his own mind without needing someone to analyze it and do his thinking for him.
Apparently anyone with a different opinion needs to have the Constitution explained to them until their opinion coincides with yours. I have a sneaky feeling that if he agreed with you, his knowledge of the Constitution would not be in question.
As far as Mr. Howard and the signs goes, I wasn't there and all I've got is one side of the story. I'd bet Mr. Howard has a different idea than you. It's like hearing about a divorce, there's his story, her story, and the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
arbitrarily dictating. . . . Not being a person rich in the talent of discernment,. .. . ....continuous, flagrant and distracting display of signage ......roughshod and intemperate invocation ......Council's rules governing behavior, decorum, ......no more than an engraftment of Mr. Howard's personal feelings and predispositions. ....... .....Howard's dictatorial proscription of signs ........capriciously and unjustifiably constrain comment .......autocratic and dictatorial .....late and unlamented Chairman Mao!

I suspected before but now I am almost certain I know who you are. You write just like you talk: Rambling, pointless, kind of embarrassing and in love with himself, the camera and especially with his adjectives.

I tend to believe the council is composed of citizens trying to conduct the business of the city with minimal distraction. Your "right" to bring a sign to the meeting stops precisely at my right to have the council conduct the business I elected them to do.

Banning a sign can obviously be an infringement on your speech but you haven't given nearly enough informations to determine that. Give us the facts and leave out some adjectives and ego and lets see where it takes us.

What are the facts?

[/QUOTE]

Attempted (and in this case failed)cuteness is the frequent refuge of those who are polemically incompetent, as is clearly the case with you.[/QUOTE]

If you really think Mr. Howard's act is an attack on the First Amendment you need some perspective. His act no more violates your First Amendment rights than when a judge asks for quiet in the court or when Robert's Rule of Order is used in a meeting. The 'freedom of speech' was not taken away from any of these examples simply limited [they could have their signs outside the building I assume] to allow a productive meeting. The same courtesy is given in courts of law, legislative sessions, and many other governments functions for efficiency. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I feel like you probably have some other complaints about Mr. Howard.

quote:

casual and careless abuse of the First Amendment in his high-handeded dictum against signs is a form of self-idolatry

http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5521043475/m/4561054146

I heard that this is simply his new campaign against "litter". I've heard reports that he was on Cox Creek Parkway this afternoon with a raving lunatic tearing down yard sale signs and campaign posters! Oh the irony.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
The very first word in the 1st Amendment, Congress. Congress didn't try to pass any ban on signs in Florence city council meetings, the council chairman did. Unless it's in violation of the state constitution, he can legally do that.

However, it's a pretty dumb move. When you try to shut the people up, the people will usually vote you out. Trying to prevent people from making their opinions known at a council meeting is political suicide.

You are badly misinformed on this matter. The argument that one's First Amendment rights are protected only from being abridged or denied by some Congressional action is just dead wrong. The rights we enjoy under the First and other amendments may not legally be denied or restrained by either Congressional OR state action. I will make that simple for you by providing below that portion of the Wikipedia entry on the Constitution which addresses this matter:

"Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making ("legislative") authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the limitations of the First Amendment to restrict also the states."

The states are as bound by the First Amendment as is the Congress, thanks to the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court's consistent interpretations of same. Be very glad of that. Otherwise each state could decide how much of the First Amendment's benefits you would be granted under state law. Don't want THAT, now, do we??!

quote:

Originally posted by bluesman *:
I am a firm believer of the First Admendment rights. But according to the Code of Alabama Title 11-43A-89 "The council shall determine its own business, and such rules shall be established by ordinance". Now say I wanted to attend a council meeting, do my little 5 minutes of speech, and tell them I am having a yard sale or I have monkeys for sale and wear a monkey shirt advertising with the advertisement displayed on it. Or, what if I am a preacher and want to use my 5 mintutes to preach and tell you where my church is and give my phone number out. Or what if I used for any reason whatsoever, who draws the line as to how far one can go.

The Council has drawn up its rules governing "Business from the Floor." And evidently you have not read those rules, since from your comments it is obvious that you are grossly unfamiliar with them and thus your misinformed analysis rests only on your assumption of what is in those rules. I suggest you do as I have done and go to the City Clerk's office and obtain a copy of the Code of the City of Florence and read and meditate a bit upon that portion of the Code that deals with these matters. It is those rules that "draw the line" on what is and what is not permissible and there is nothing in those rules that validates the Council President's prohibition of the display of signage or other visual aids in conjunction with the presentation of "business from the public." You might be surprised to find just how permissive those rules are. On numerous occasions, persons have appeared before the council and presented "business from the public" that was no more directly relevant to city government that the examples you have cited and those persons were not restricted from speaking in any way. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

quote:

Originally posted by CharlieFoxtrot:

Attempted (and in this case failed)cuteness is the frequent refuge of those who are polemically incompetent, as is clearly the case with you.[/QUOTE]

If you really think Mr. Howard's act is an attack on the First Amendment you need some perspective. His act no more violates your First Amendment rights than when a judge asks for quiet in the court or when Robert's Rule of Order is used in a meeting. The 'freedom of speech' was not taken away from any of these examples simply limited [they could have their signs outside the building I assume] to allow a productive meeting. The same courtesy is given in courts of law, legislative sessions, and many other governments functions for efficiency. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I feel like you probably have some other complaints about Mr. Howard.[/QUOTE]

What you utterly fail to understand is this--

When a public, governmental body establishes a forum that permits citizens to address that body, it may indeed establish rules governing certain matters, such as time limits, decorum (e.g. no obscene and indecent speech), as well as prohibitions against scandalous and defamatory content. But when there are rules set forth by that body that govern how the participating public is to proceed, those rules must be applied as they are written. The presiding officer has no right to add to, subtract from or modify them to suit his personal likes and dislikes. Posters, "signs", flip charts and other aids to presentation are commonplace aids to the placement of "business" before the Council. There is nothing inherently objectionable in the use of such aids. For example, developers use all kinds of charts and drawings to describe their plans. Their "business" takes place in a different part of the Council agenda than the part reserved for "business from the floor," but the point is that the MANNER of presentation is essentially the same. And whether you know anything about it or not, the "time, place, and MANNER" by which speech is regulated is of immense Constitutional importance. There is nothing in the Council rules that addresses even remotely the MANNER in which a speaker may organize and present his "business," other than the prohibitions that govern obscenity, slander, etc. NOT ONE THING in those rules addresses the matter of visual aids, charts, graphs, tables or other such materials. Thus the Chairman, when he selectively interdicts the use of such materials without any basis in the governing rules, is impermissibly restricting the MANNER in which presentations may be made.

I sincerely hope that this information penetrated the barriers of simplism and naivete that thus far have severly impaired you understanding in this matter.

quote:

What you utterly fail to understand is this--

When a public, governmental body establishes a forum that permits citizens to address that body, it may indeed establish rules governing certain matters, such as time limits, decorum (e.g. no obscene and indecent speech), as well as prohibitions against scandalous and defamatory content. But when there are rules set forth by that body that govern how the participating public is to proceed, those rules must be applied as they are written. The presiding officer has no right to add to, subtract from or modify them to suit his personal likes and dislikes. Posters, "signs", flip charts and other aids to presentation are commonplace aids to the placement of "business" before the Council. There is nothing inherently objectionable in the use of such aids. For example, developers use all kinds of charts and drawings to describe their plans. Their "business" takes place in a different part of the Council agenda than the part reserved for "business from the floor," but the point is that the MANNER of presentation is essentially the same. And whether you know anything about it or not, the "time, place, and MANNER" by which speech is regulated is of immense Constitutional importance. There is nothing in the Council rules that addresses even remotely the MANNER in which a speaker may organize and present his "business," other than the prohibitions that govern obscenity, slander, etc. NOT ONE THING in those rules addresses the matter of visual aids, charts, graphs, tables or other such materials. Thus the Chairman, when he selectively interdicts the use of such materials without any basis in the governing rules, is impermissibly restricting the MANNER in which presentations may be made.

I sincerely hope that this information penetrated the barriers of simplism and naivete that thus far have severly impaired you understanding in this matter.

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AP_action_homepage

Take Action dude. Quit wasting your time on a message board with ignorant dopes like me and save the First Amendment. BTW when a word is underlined in red it means the word is misspelled.

quote:

Originally posted by bluesman *:
And did the previous council violate the First Admendment Rights, when they order that no one was allowed to have the right to speak and took away their 5 minutes of speech, was that a violation of the First Admendment Freedom of Speech Rights, who drew the lind there.

More education for you--

The Council is not OBLIGATED to provide the opportunity to speak, but when it does so and when it publishes rules governing such speech, it is obliged to follow those rules in order that the opportunity it is according to its citizens is evenly and fairly granted, without the kind of prior restraint and censorship imoposed by a Chairman or anyone else who makes up rules or adds rules to suit his/her own quirks.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
arbitrarily dictating. . . . Not being a person rich in the talent of discernment,. .. . ....continuous, flagrant and distracting display of signage ......roughshod and intemperate invocation ......Council's rules governing behavior, decorum, ......no more than an engraftment of Mr. Howard's personal feelings and predispositions. ....... .....Howard's dictatorial proscription of signs ........capriciously and unjustifiably constrain comment .......autocratic and dictatorial .....late and unlamented Chairman Mao!

I suspected before but now I am almost certain I know who you are. You write just like you talk: Rambling, pointless, kind of embarrassing and in love with himself, the camera and especially with his adjectives.

I tend to believe the council is composed of citizens trying to conduct the business of the city with minimal distraction. Your "right" to bring a sign to the meeting stops precisely at my right to have the council conduct the business I elected them to do.

Banning a sign can obviously be an infringement on your speech but you haven't given nearly enough informations to determine that. Give us the facts and leave out some adjectives and ego and lets see where it takes us.

What are the facts?

Once more, you completely miss the point.

My "right" to bring a "sign" to use in illustrating the core subject matter (the proliferation of illegally-placed and unsightly advertising signs on rights of way)of my business before the council is not prohibited by any part of the Council's rules governing such presentations. The Council President's prohibition of the use to which I was going to put the signs is nowhere supported in any of the Council's rules dealing with "business from the floor." He greatly exceeded his authority in the matter and, given his authoritian disposition, he might well exceed his authority in future instances, depending on the kind of subject matter brought before the council and his personal attitude toward such subject matter. It is clearly time that his hand was called and I intend to do just that. As to that which you refer to as your "right to have the Council conduct the business I elected them to do," that, friend, is irrelevant also. The Council has determined that it IS their business to listen to citizens bringing business from the floor; thus the statements made by myself and others during the portion of the meeting provided for such business is part of, not something apart from, the business of the Council. It is they, not you, who decide what their business is and how to go about it.

I have answered ALL of you critics of my position in this matter and have done so in detail. If you care to respond, do so in a substantive manner, please. Cuteness and diversion will get you nowhere in the realm of polemics.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

My "right" to bring a "sign" to use in illustrating the core subject matter (the proliferation of illegally-placed and unsightly advertising signs on rights of way)of my business before the council is not prohibited by any part of the Council's rules governing such presentations.

Well, I do believe it is prohibited NOW. Thanks to you.

If it is truly a 1st Amendment violation (and it isn't), what do you plan to do about it?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
I have answered ALL of you critics of my position in this matter and have done so in detail.

I'll say . . . And with great flamboyancy!

quote:

Originally posted by bluesman *:
I am a firm believer of the First Admendment rights. But according to the Code of Alabama Title 11-43A-89 "The council shall determine its own business, and such rules shall be established by ordinance". Now say I wanted to attend a council meeting, do my little 5 minutes of speech, and tell them I am having a yard sale or I have monkeys for sale and wear a monkey shirt advertising with the advertisement displayed on it. Or, what if I am a preacher and want to use my 5 mintutes to preach and tell you where my church is and give my phone number out. Or what if I used for any reason whatsoever, who draws the line as to how far one can go.

I agree!

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
one need only read what is prescribed in the Constitution on a given matter and that will somehow settle the question of whether, in a given instance, some public official has or has not committed a violation of same.

Uh....Yeah. What else can you do with it?
For some reason you seem to think the one who reads it needs to be somebody else, perhaps somebody who agrees with you.

Maybe, after a few dozen more posts, you may divulge some facts. So far all I have been able to figure out is that you went to the council meeting to complain about unsightly signs on the right of way, and (knowing they had been banned months earlier) felt the need to carry a sign to the meeting to illustrate your point by using it in some manner. Based on these few facts plus the fact that your posts here are about violations of your First Amendment "rights", I would guess you went before the city council to complain about unsightly signs as a pretense to carry a sign to the meeting thereby demonstrating how your rights were violated. In other words you went to aggravate and make a point. This is JMO, but what do I know, hell I tried to read the First Amendment to the Constitution without somebodies help.

Banning signs during a city council meeting is not a violation of the 1st amendment. You may not like it and think it's wrong and I would agree with that. However, it's not unconstitutional to set guidelines to keep a public meeting in order. As I said before, it's not a smart move to remove a sign that is not disruptive, but it's not unconstitutional either.