Brendon Tristal NEXT QUESTION: When the media… with an FCC license… allows people to go on air to “call for (protests, vigils, rallies, or whatever word) – across over 100 MAJOR CITIES in the US – and also anywhere you are – THINK ABOUT IT. Fomenting and encouraging a “PEACEABLE PROTEST” that BECOMES VIOLENT, and there is hard evidence that could strongly be argued in a Federal court that certain persons HAVE DONE SO on NATIONAL TELEVISION… with ALL THE PROBLEMS THE WORLD AND THIS COUNTRY ALREADY HAS, WHY DO PEOPLE NEED TO INVENT MORE? Surely it will pack even MORE people into jails and prisons… which spread disease and are overpopulated. Wonderful and perfectly American. But make NO mistake…. a PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY does NOT involve 1. ANY violence, and regardless of what you call PEACEFUL, if you DISRUPT INFRASTRUCTURE (such as protesting in the middle of an interstate Federal highway) then that is really IMHO DOMESTIC TERRORISM and nothing LESS.
Brendon Tristal KEVIN FAYLE, FindLaw.comCongress shall make no law . . . 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.
— First Amendment, U.S. Constitution
The Framers of the Constitution held the right to free speech in such high regard that they enshrined it at the top of the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment. Indeed, the right to free speech enjoys some of the strongest protections of any of the rights enumerated in the text of the Constitution.
The right is not absolute, however. State, local and federal governments can regulate how people express themselves, provided that they adhere to certain principles laid down by the United States Supreme Court. Moreover, certain types of speech – such as threats and incitations to violence – aren’t protected at all.
As mentioned above, certain forms of speech receive no First Amendment protection. The government can also stop expressive behavior that violates public safety laws, such as street sidewalk blockages, sit-ins and human barricades. While these tactics might constitute an effective form of protest, the police can break them up without violating the demonstrators’ right to free expression.
Land and structures owned by the federal government are considered “public” in the sense that they are owned by the taxpayers of the United States. Not all public areas are considered public forums for free speech purposes, however, and the government can disallow speech on certain government property altogether.
Brendon Tristal http://rt.com/usa/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/
rt.comJust when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
Brendon Tristal From above via rt.com “Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.”~~~~~~Brendon2013jul19 tags PEACEFUL PROTEST, RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY, RIGHT TO PROTEST, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, SOCIAL DISTORTION, DISRUPTION OF LAW, DESTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE, LIMITS OF FIRST AMENDMENT, CIVIL RIGHTS
Excuse me. Peacefully gathering “rallies” or “VIGILS” or “Protests” — ENCIRCLING THE NATION’S MAJOR AND EVEN SMALL CITIES POLICE STATIONS AND COURTHOUSES – DISRUPTING EVERYTHING IS DEFINED AS FOMENTING PUBLIC UNREST. WHO OR WHAT IS GUILTY OF THIS CRIME? IS IT DOMESTIC TERRORISM? IS IT GOVERNMENT OVERTHROW/REVOLUTION? IS IT CIVIL WAR, NOW? Let us check.