Maybe I don't understand the First Amendment

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
One of the hardest things to understand used to be that the First Amendment in all it's glory means people can say things I find vile and disgusting. And the mark of someone who truly supports the constitution is when someone defends a POS's right to burn our flag or scream a fallen soldier was a *** and deserved to die.

So this confuses me. What did these people do to warrant getting arrested for disorderly conduct and why there would be special rules defining a public area?

This is a vid of Christians distributing literature OUTSIDE a Dearborn Muslim festival. They are standing on a public sidewalk and in this vid do not appear to be abusive or harrassing to the people they hand lit to.
Notice less than 3 minutes there 8 cops surround them, confiscate their literature and their cells and camera and take them to a detention area and booked them.
They are then told they must stay 5 blocks out side of the festival gate.
Even the vile Phelps only is restricted to 300 feet from a funeral of a fallen warrior and he is yelling vile crap and holding vile signs that disparage the dead soldier.
The Link


I am sure the ACLU will be on this.
 
minority perspectives are protected, but anything that is thought of as dominant, or white and male are not allowed. It is pretty clear.
 
don't have sound where i'm at right now, but I don't see anything wrong with what those people handing out flyers were doing. Seems to be another overraction by big brother.

If you're going to let radical muslims, people talking about dead soldiers, etc, etc,...carry on with their protest/whatever seems you should let these people do the same thing. Shame on the Dearborn police, they had ZERO right to do what they did, but nothing will probably come of it.
 
6721 - Have you bothered to look into this any further than the video? In the past you say you like to "get all the facts" before making up your mind, so I'm just wondering if you've done that here.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
johnnym
uh THAT is why the title says " maybe I don't understand the first amendment
You allude to more information that would explain why these people were detained but didn't provide it.
Perhaps you'd post that information.
 
Here's a hint - the district court decided on this matter last year, and again this year. In short:

These guys were free to roam and hand out leaflets up until 2009.

In 2009, the festival and local police adopted a no handbill policy for the inner and outer perimeter. People were allowed to apply for a booth and hand out literature at the booth. This group actually did have a booth in 2009. They complained that it was not in a good location and had poor lighting. They wanted to be able to roam the area and hand out literature. The district court struck down their challenge because the no handbill rule applies uniformly to everyone. That means Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike would all receive the same treatment if they were attempting to walk around and distribute information rather than sticking to their booth.

This year, the festival offered to provide a booth at NO charge that was closer to the festival center AND had lighting. The group declined the booth and attempted again to break the no handbill rules. That is why they were detained and later released, and why they were told to go outside the outer perimeter.

These guys were breaking the rules, plain and simple. They knew it and they did it on purpose. I see no infringement of any rights here, but perhaps you can offer a legal argument to change my mind?

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You see this kind of crap all the time though at every major event in the country. Conventions both left and right have protestors and they seem to confine them to one area.
Passing a "no handbill" policy is just pandering to the muslim community, and don't you just love how it takes a bunch of cops to surround three guys to make try and show some force and act tough.

It's just more of the same from the left...lets really overzealously enforce some nonsense handbill policy, and ignore other lawbreaking like illegal immigration, etc.
 
johnnym
thanks for the info, do you have a link?
I did not know these people tried this before so I wouldn't know to search for past information.

Jm I did try to find out if any further action had been taken this year but none has, as far as I can see.

This "In 2009, the festival and local police adopted a no handbill policy for the inner and outer perimeter."

So the muslim festival and police can decide anything within 5 blocks of the entrance to a festival can be ruled off limits?
that seems extreme. when they close the Mall in DC or the sidewalk in front of the WH they don't use a 5 block perimeter

I appreciate the information you provided.If you have the link that would be great.
 
Nevertheless, is handing out handbills a jailable offense?

Apparently so.

In Dearborn, Michigan.

And isn't that law, (actually you used the word "rule", didn't you JohnnyM?), in effect an abrogation of the First Amendment?

Why is that rule in place? What is so threatening about handbills that they require a restriction of the First Amendment of the Constitution?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.
 
Here is one link. I read the first passage wrong the first time. Here is my understanding:

LAST year they lost a court cast because the district court ruled that the no handbill rule was applied uniformly and thus did not infringe their rights (that is a gross simplification, I'm in a hurry here...).

THIS year it seems that they did win an injunction pending appeal - meaning (if my reading is correct) that they are allowed to pass out pamphlets for the festival this year only in the buffer zone (the injunction specifies the dates) pending their appeal of the lawsuit they lost last year.

I'm curious as to why the TRO wasn't mentioned in the video, as I doubt the police would so blatantly disregard a recent court order, but you never know. I will be doing more looking into this later because it's an interesting situation.
The Link

Just for disclosure sake, I've never been to that site before and I have no idea what that site is about. I found the linked post with a google search, it was the first result.
 
the first amendment isn't quite as broad as you guys think. There can be and are a lot of restrictions on it, and just because something limits your freedom of speech does not make it de facto unConstitutional. it's important to read these court cases and learn how the courts apply tests and standards to these types of cases.

this thread is a good example of what happens when people try to apply their own standards to a set of facts without bothering to learn what the actual legal standards are. i'm not saying that this restriction is/was valid, but i'm saying that it's not NEARLY as simple as looking at a video and claiming rights are infringed - which is what most of you guys are doing here.

if anyone wants to comment on the court decisions and provide legal insight as to how the court will/should apply the law, that would be fantastic.

THEU thinks the 1st amendment rights are being infringed and it's due to their standing as being a part of the white christian majority. that is just completely absurd if you've bothered to read the background or tried to LEARN about this particular case.

msdw says he "doesn't see anything wrong", but again it's not just about the video, there is more to the issue. we shouldn't decide issues of rights based on a gut feeling after watching a video.

i'm not arguing for one side or the other, i'm saying that there's more to the issue than the video and that we shouldn't decide what WE think the first amendment means. that job is with the courts, and we should take the time to learn how the court applies the standards that are in place before we start saying this or that is unConstitutional and/or blaming the left or the right.
 
johnnym
so could we say this post of yours
"Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Look into the issue further. Read the court decisions on this very situation. " applies to you?
biggrin.gif


here is the Detroit link from june19 2010 which explains very clearly the 6th Circuit Court overturned the District court's decision.
johnnym is that what you meant by reading court decisions?

this from the link
:"Local news: Pastor gets OK for handouts," from the Detroit Free Press, June 19:

A Christian pastor can distribute literature on the streets at this weekend's Arab-American festival along Warren Avenue in Dearborn, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
George Saieg of California wants to hand out pamphlets aimed at converting Muslims.
The Thursday ruling overturned a District Court decision that supported Dearborn's policy, which said Saieg and anyone else must hand out literature only around their booths because of crowd control concerns."http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/6th-circuit-court-of-appeals-overturns-lower-courts-ruling-prohibiting-christians-from-distributing.html
Interesting that even with this Circuit Court's Decision the police still arrested the people, who according to the vid in the first link were outside the muslims festival.

Maybe NOW it is time for the ACLU??
 
i said read court decisions and you respond with a news article. typical.

further, i already stated that i misread the first section in the link i provided. if that means i don't know what i'm talking about to you, that's fine by me. at least i'm doing the research that you either didn't do or tried and failed to do.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
johnnym
The Detriot Free Press site did provide the information on the 6th Circuit court Decision.
BTW Was the link YOu provided on the court decision you first thought proved these Christian literature people had not right to be there was what??
A District Court link?
here is what you said about your link
"I have no idea what that site is about."

So JohnnyM
you read a link, not even a District Court link You apparently misread it and you chastize me for not reading a court site?
brickwall.gif
 
JohnnyM,
I think there is a deeper question that is a good one to talk about here between you and Horn6721. Is a 'no hand bill' rule in keeping with the first amendment. I agree 100% that there are certain limitations on freedom of speech, but where are the reasonable boundaries on speech?
I do appreciate you looking into the matter further. Even as a Christian that video had the feeling of being a 'set up.', which it was. I still don't know why this rule about hand bills is legal. They don't seem to be handing out anything offensive, and they also aren't blocking foot traffic or doing anything unsafe.
I guess I understand the law and why this video is a 'set-up' but find the rule about handbills excessive and hard to defend. Again, thank you for the background information though.
 
the story from my link provides two links to the court cases. do your links provide access to text of the court decisions? if so i must have missed it. have you made any comments on the court cases or the legal reasoning behind them? if so i must have missed it.

THEU - i encourage you to read the court decisions and the decisions that they cite to learn how the court applies certain tests and standards to these issues. i don't say that to be patronizing, but because i think you would find them interesting.

it's very possible that the original decision will be tossed out and the plaintiffs will prevail, but it will be for specific legal reasons and not based on any feeling that any of us get from watching that video or applying our non-legal thinking to the situation.
 
to be fair
here is the 6th Circuit Court DecisionThe Link
and I don't have to post that I have no idea what this site is about.
JohnnyM You are correct in that this is just an injunction which allows the distribution of literature on Warren st this year. You got it right the second time. Good for you.

Which begs the question why did 8 cops surround 3 people who on the video seem to be quite peacefully offering literature, not saying anything to the people and not trying to force anyone to take it, detain them confiscate thie camera and perhaps charge them with disorderly conduct?

I couldn't find any info that the Mayor or Police Chief has apologized.
I think this is a case for crime fighter Obama and his beer summit.
 
johnnym to answer your question, "dude, i only said that to say that this wasn't a site i frequented. why are you reading into that?

You post as a source to refute a site you admitted you don't know anything about;
A site called conspiracy something and then after I post a Detriot Free Press site with the details and quotes from the 6th Circuit Court Decision
you post this, "i said read court decisions and you respond with a news article. typical. "


Geez. the entire point of the OP was , from the vid it seemed the police over reacted .
I am not a lawyer. I am only looking at what seems an unfair action.
As it turns out that police action probably was wrong.
That is it
Now pick apart anything I said and come back with a snappy insult. Maybe you point out an error I made and then remind me it is " typical"
 
JohnnyM,
It seems to me that this Christian dude is kinda an assmunch. He wants basically to walk around freely in another group's private festival, when they have said you can come in and have a booth and free too! They don't mind his group participating, but he can't break their rules. The Festival group, which is NOT Muslim in nature seems to be acting very reasonable.
I guess I am unclear about this 'buffer area' It seems like that handbill distribution would not pose a danger or anything in this area... Definately a 'set-up' video meant to evoke outrage.
 
Theu
and there is the reason for the first amendment. I know that even though you disagree with the Christian dude you support his right to free speech etc.

Actually they were not IN the muslim Festival, they were on a public street outside the entrance.

a set up? do you think they made 8 police surround 3 peaceful guys? and bubba walk them to a detention center while confiscating their camera?
Do you think the Christian ( or whatever they really are) dude made the police tell them they could not give out literature within 5 blocks of the Muslim festival?

Now that you know there was an injunction to allow them to had out literature on Warren st( which is where they were when the arrests were made) why would you think it was a set up? They had a legal right to be there and I doubt they thought the police would arrest them.

Far more likely they though the muslims entering the festival would give them trouble and so the camera.

I think this pastor guy is a jerk. I think Phelps is a POS. I think anyone who burns a flag as a protest is an asshat
but each of them has a right to express themselves within the law
and they were within the law.
 
again Horn6721, I think we are on the same page.. It seems that in the video that the Christian are in that buffer zone... I don't see why they can't hand out stuff there. I can understand and find it reasonable that they can't hand out stuff in the festival, but it seems they weren't in the festival.
And yes, even jerks have a right to free speech. I actually think the idea is a cool one. The handing out of the Gospel. I just think there are better ways to go about it.
 
When I was a Baptist pastor in Missouri, I wrote this editorial to a paper in regards to the First Amendment. I could say a lot more about the particular case in Dearborne, but maybe later. What do y'all think of this?

First Amendment—“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.”


Dear Editor:

In response to many of the questions regarding the First Amendment, our understanding of it needs a little work. There is a reason why all of these protections were grouped together under the same amendment: because they were considered related.

The “thereof” does not point backwards, it points forwards to the following examples of ways free exercise was not to be denied.

Historically speaking, the prohibition of religion occurred in each of the ways listed in the amendment.

Freedom of speech was denied to citizens and preachers who were not a part of the established church. They were arrested and thrown in jail for preaching without a license.

Freedom of the press was not just about newspapers and other media. Freedom of the press was denied to citizens who were not allowed to print and distribute religious material that did not conform to the established state church. They were harassed and their printed material was confiscated.

Freedom to assemble was denied to citizens who wanted to peaceably assemble in an unauthorized church fellowship. These church gatherings were required to be registered. If they were not registered, they could be broken up by government authorities and the leaders arrested.

Baptists have a history of facing these types of denial of freedom. Roger Williams, who established the first Baptist church in America and Rhode Island, experienced persecution and threats of jail. Isaac Backus led the Warren Association Grievance Committee in Massachusetts opposing tax payer funding for a state church. He also argued in Government and Liberty (1778) that the Revolutionary War was fought for both political and religious freedom. John Leland negotiated with James Madison to include religious freedom protections in the Constitution. Madison himself is reported to have witnessed several Baptists preach from jail while he was a child.

In short, the first amendment was intended to create a climate of freedom in America where religious expression can flourish unhindered by the government and not to squelch, even unpopular ideas in the public square.

Modern understanding of Separation of Church & State reverses this and has turned the first amendment from a protection of religious expression to the government taking a hostile position of removal of public religious expression. Baptists, then and today, are opposed to this.

Pursuing Answers to Questions of Faith & Life,

Kelly Reed
 
I'd always understood that there were limitations to the freedom of speech when safety was concerned, i.e. you can't run into a crowded theater and yell "Fire". Perhaps the thought of Christians running around trying to convert Muslims, while at a Muslim gathering concerned the police for safety reasons? Just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top