Category Archives: First Amendment

Perhaps the most offensive display at the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the posting by the BLM representatives of a sign FIRST AMENDMENT AREA for protestors April 1. This coming days before the standoff certainly demonstrated their foreknowledge of impending opposition. An expandable red plastic three-foot-high wall encircled the area. In other words, those verbalizing disagreement with the BLMs heavy-handed confiscation of Bundy cattle could only express themselves within this restricted area or risk being arrested.

Such was offensive to participants who promptly added to the sign 1st AMENDMENT IS NOT AN AREA and thereafter refused to do their protesting where allowed by the government. Besides the area was too far away from the action causing the protesting. A sympathizer posted on the Internet a map of the United States with the words FREE SPEECH ZONE written over the length of the nation from California to South Carolina; this was the Founders interpretation and reverenced as so until more recent times.

Dave Bundy was the first to be arrested for taking video footage from a state highway of BLM agents rounding up his familys cattle refusing to remain in the restricted area. Video footage now available showed that armed snipers had their guns trained on the family during the incident. Family members were told that they, had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that. One does not have to wonder why the Bundy ordeal attracted freedom buffs from as far away as Connecticut.

I first heard of free speech zones during the George W. Bush Administration when there were so many demonstrations against invading Iraq. College campuses initiated the zones in what appeared to be designed to intentionally limit opposition. They were always too small and if more than one zone were allowed they were separated, seemingly to minimize the size of the opposition. A nephew, in San Francisco demonstrating against the war, was arrested because he could not fit within one of the small circles. He and hundreds more, also unable to fit within the approved dissent areas, were taken to warehouses somewhere in the city and housed until all were processed. He was confined for three days. The slow processing he considered intentional punishment for his dissent. I have spoken out against these 1st Amendment areas since. They do not exist in a free country.

The First Amendment clearly states that, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Since Congress is the only entity that can make law as per Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and since they have never passed such a law; the Executive Branch has no authority to pen dissent.

Unfortunately such has been altered by recent court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and mannerbut not contentof expression, hence the origin of free speech zonesdecidedly a court perversion. Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded (Wikipedia). After September 11, they were common. President Bush used the Secret Service to make certain such were not near where he might speak or pass by, a procedure closely emulated by President Barack Obama. Dissent is therefore noticeably reduced and less likely to be filmed. If such had been used against Martin Luther King, Jr. the Civil Rights Movement may never have gotten off the ground. Those refusing to dissent only in the governments proper areas are charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or trespassing. If the approved dissent areas are far from the president (some a half mile away) he may never know that the people are unhappy with him.

For the Bundy friends and neighbors, the governments First Amendment Area had the same shape and similarity as a cattle pen where the people would be cordoned off and neutralized. How can this be seen as petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances? No government! This is nothing more than a ploy to reduce dissent and the more regimental that you are, as in the case of the Bundy Standoff, the more you will use it. Court approval or not it is clearly unconstitutional. The Founders would have called it tyranny.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit http://www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Read more:

HAROLD PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment

The elderly owner of an NBA team spouts racist comments in private that are secretly being recorded. The league ends up punishing him, but is that enough? Should government do something to punish people who say such things?

Hateful and hurtful comments abound daily on the Internet. Sometimes people who harbor such feelings end up committing crimes. Should government monitor cyberspace and take action against such speech?

To students of the United States Constitution and its origins, the answers to such questions are clear. The nations Founding Fathers exhibited extraordinary wisdom when they added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution that included, in its First Amendment, a guarantee of free speech, free press and the free exercise of religion.

The natural inclination of most people in power is to suppress dissent and put an end to ideas that might threaten their power. But the Founders understood that ideas, like commerce, flourish best in a free marketplace, and that the best way to combat hatred and falsehood is to do so head-on, with logic, reason and persuasion.

That wisdom has become only more self-evident since their day.

A government that attempts to ban speech cannot ban the ideas behind that speech.

Left uncontested in societys dark corners, false and dangerous ideas can fester and grow until they burst again into view, too large to confront with reason. On the other end of the spectrum, a government concerned with speech may ban good ideas merely because it perceives them to be a threat.

Unfortunately, Americans are not born with an understanding of these fundamental notions of freedom. Each generation must confront them anew.

One of the most disturbing recent manifestations of this is a bill being sponsored by Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. It would empower the federal government to analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.

This analysis would end with a report that includes recommendations for addressing such hate speech, as long as these are consistent with the First Amendment.

Go here to read the rest:

In our opinion: Why government can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment

Save Us Chuck - First Amendment Zones
http://www.RestartCongress.org / http://www.SaveUsChuckWoolery.com - Game show legend Chuck Woolery discusses the government #39;s restriction of spectator #39;s fir...

By: Save Us Chuck Woolery

Read the original post:

Save Us Chuck - First Amendment Zones - Video

The First Amendment Doesn #39;t Allow us to Silence Opposition; Get Rid of Limits on Political Speech
U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, today said McCain-Feingold was a failed attempt to regulate ...

By: SenPatRoberts

More here:

The First Amendment Doesn't Allow us to Silence Opposition; Get Rid of Limits on Political Speech - Video

John Dukes on First Amendment
Wake up Sutter County! This is a man who has at least twice taken the following solemn oath: I, John Dukes, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support...

By: Dragon Flier

More:

John Dukes on First Amendment - Video

Was Donald Sterling #39;s First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated?
Basically giving a rundown of how Donald Sterling #39;s first amendment rights to free speech were NOT violated. Cleared up a lot of confusion for me, and hopefu...

By: DRock1042

Read more from the original source:

Was Donald Sterling's First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? - Video

California Mayors Stand Behind Anti First Amendment Freedom of Speech Approval
B.W.N https://www.youtube.com/user/BreakingWorldNewsful The mayors of Los Angeles and Sacramento, California react to the NBA #39;s lifetime ban imposed on LA ...

By: M10750calSASR

Original post:

California Mayors Stand Behind Anti First Amendment Freedom of Speech Approval - Video

A tavern owner has won a First Amendment battle against a New Jersey city over his right to open a bar called Buck Foston.

A federal jury this week found that the city of New Brunswick violated the constitutional rights of Larry Blatterfein by denying him a liquor license. In siding with the 61-year-old businessman, the jury concluded that the city held up the bar in red tape because it objected to its name, an off-color pun evoking the legendary rivalry between the Yankees and the Red Sox.

The dispute began five years ago when Mr. Blatterfein, an International Business Machines Corp. systems engineer-turned tavern owner, drew up plans to develop a sports bar complex in New Brunswick, about 25 miles southwest of New York City. He figured patrons in a city filled with Yankees fans would get a kick out of the name Buck Foston, a type of play on words known as a spoonerism.

But his plans were dealt a blushing crow, er, a crushing blow when the city refused to process his application to transfer a liquor license.

Frustrated by the delay, Mr. Blatterfein in 2011 filed suit in federal court in New Jersey, alleging the city intentionally derailed the project because New Brunswicks mayor, James Cahill, thought the name was vulgar. The citys resistance, Mr. Blatterfein alleged, violated his First Amendment rights.

A spokesman for the mayor said at the time the suit was filed the mayor was opposed to the name but that the license was held up because Mr. Blatterfein hadnt submitted all the necessary paperwork, according to the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

The case went to trial after a federal judge in September refused to dismiss it. After deliberating for two days, the seven-person jury on Wednesday returned a 6-1 verdict in Mr. Blatterfeins favor and awarded him $1.5 million.

A lawyer for the city didnt immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr.Cahill told the Star-Ledger he was disappointed with the verdict but, while it would have been better to win, the verdict was not for the amount Mr. Blatterfein was seeking.

An attorney for Mr. Blatterfein, who was represented by Joshpe Law Group LLP,said the two sides entered into a settlement agreement after the verdict was announced but declined to discuss the details.

Mr. Blatterfein has since decamped to Tampa, Fla., where hes about to open a new bar. In an interview with Law Blog, he says he probably wont revive the Buck Foston project, but still savors his victory. The First Amendment is sacrosanct in our country as it should be, he said.

Read more:

Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial

Perhaps the most offensive display at the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the posting by the BLM representatives of a sign FIRST AMENDMENT AREA for protestors April 1. This coming days before the standoff certainly demonstrated their foreknowledge of impending opposition. An expandable red plastic three-foot-high wall encircled the area. In other words, those verbalizing disagreement with the BLMs heavy-handed confiscation of Bundy cattle could only express themselves within this restricted area or risk being arrested.

Such was offensive to participants who promptly added to the sign 1st AMENDMENT IS NOT AN AREA and thereafter refused to do their protesting where allowed by the government. Besides the area was too far away from the action causing the protesting. A sympathizer posted on the Internet a map of the United States with the words FREE SPEECH ZONE written over the length of the nation from California to South Carolina; this was the Founders interpretation and reverenced as so until more recent times.

Dave Bundy was the first to be arrested for taking video footage from a state highway of BLM agents rounding up his familys cattle refusing to remain in the restricted area. Video footage now available showed that armed snipers had their guns trained on the family during the incident. Family members were told that they, had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that. One does not have to wonder why the Bundy ordeal attracted freedom buffs from as far away as Connecticut.

I first heard of free speech zones during the George W. Bush Administration when there were so many demonstrations against invading Iraq. College campuses initiated the zones in what appeared to be designed to intentionally limit opposition. They were always too small and if more than one zone were allowed they were separated, seemingly to minimize the size of the opposition. A nephew, in San Francisco demonstrating against the war, was arrested because he could not fit within one of the small circles. He and hundreds more, also unable to fit within the approved dissent areas, were taken to warehouses somewhere in the city and housed until all were processed. He was confined for three days. The slow processing he considered intentional punishment for his dissent. I have spoken out against these 1st Amendment areas since. They do not exist in a free country.

The First Amendment clearly states that, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Since Congress is the only entity that can make law as per Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and since they have never passed such a law; the Executive Branch has no authority to pen dissent.

Unfortunately such has been altered by recent court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and mannerbut not contentof expression, hence the origin of free speech zonesdecidedly a court perversion. Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded (Wikipedia). After September 11, they were common. President Bush used the Secret Service to make certain such were not near where he might speak or pass by, a procedure closely emulated by President Barack Obama. Dissent is therefore noticeably reduced and less likely to be filmed. If such had been used against Martin Luther King, Jr. the Civil Rights Movement may never have gotten off the ground. Those refusing to dissent only in the governments proper areas are charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or trespassing. If the approved dissent areas are far from the president (some a half mile away) he may never know that the people are unhappy with him.

For the Bundy friends and neighbors, the governments First Amendment Area had the same shape and similarity as a cattle pen where the people would be cordoned off and neutralized. How can this be seen as petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances? No government! This is nothing more than a ploy to reduce dissent and the more regimental that you are, as in the case of the Bundy Standoff, the more you will use it. Court approval or not it is clearly unconstitutional. The Founders would have called it tyranny.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit http://www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Original post:

PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment

POSTED: Thursday, May 1, 2014 - 6:54pm

UPDATED: Thursday, May 1, 2014 - 8:33pm

Tyler (KETK) I always like to hear from the audience and a few of you have weighed in about the crazyNBA owner in LA.

You ask me about his First Amendment rights. Well, yes, he has them. So do you. So do I

That's what I am doing right now. I can speak against the powers that be it state, local or federal government.

In fact, an attorney friend of mine said it best on his Facebook page:"Don't we have freedom of speech?" they asked him. My friend replies by saying, "Please allow me to point out that the First Amendment protects us against attacks by the government on freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not apply to the NBA or other private businesses. "

You can get on the federal government all day long, but what you say here in East Texas may hurt you.

Case in point, I could get mad about somebody or something and trash them right here. You could do it at the grocery store or down at the VFW hall, but what you say can be held against you.

If you run a business, people may never buy from you again because they think you're a nut. You have the right to take on your employer.

They have the right to have the last say and that may not pay very well. I'll wrap up with that old Johnny Paycheck song.

More here:

First Amendment common sense