What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
215 Comments
- inactive, on 05/31/2008, -59/+155I am a liberal atheist, yet I disagree with your title. Free speech was not banned. Demonstrations are not allowed at the front of the Supreme Court. Just like you can not come onto my front lawn and do the same demonstration. you would be trespassing on my property. yes I know the Supreme Court is our court, and it's on property we all own, but lets not let common sense be thrown out the window to score cheap political points. That is what the Bush administration does on a regular basis, as well as the likes of Fox News, and right wing blow hards.
If these people had applied for a permit to demonstrate I am sure they would have been given one.
Yet anarchy can not rule the day. - TomK88, on 05/31/2008, -24/+88Typical over-sensationalized title. Imagine the world was actually like what is depicted on Digg...
- pintomp3, on 05/31/2008, -7/+58i'm not sure what atheism has to do with this issue, but freedom of assembly is a fundamental right.
- TVarmy, on 05/31/2008, -11/+60I'm sorry, but it's public property. So long as the protesters aren't violating the privacy owed to the people within the court as per the constitution and law or damaging any property, they should be allowed the right to peacefully demonstrate. And I don't care that you're a liberal atheist. It's besides the point. There's no religion here, and I don't think being anti-torture or pro-free speech has to be married to liberalism.
These people aren't anarchists. They're concerned citizens active in democracy. I do agree with what they're campaigning for, but if it were people protesting evolution in schools, I would still support their right to protest on public property even though I am 100% for teaching evolution in public education. - spyd3rweb, on 05/31/2008, -8/+45A permit to demonstrate??? what the hell country is this anyways?
- inactive, on 05/31/2008, -4/+31As we all know, the constitution clearly states that you must fill out demonstration forms B2, and C7 to receive your permit to exercise your rights.
- pintomp3, on 05/31/2008, -1/+25I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire - inactive, on 05/31/2008, -1/+23If you owned part of his lawn, it wouldn't be his lawn.
- flibuste, on 05/31/2008, -3/+22First, what is being a liberal AND atheist has to do with the topic?
Second, your "liberal" ideas sound very short sighted when you agree that free speech should not be exercised on a "lawn" that is the property of the state, hence the government, hence you the people.
Your lawn is your private area, but the supreme court's lawn is still mowed by public money. As such, it is not private.
Giving any kind of sentence to demonstrators for such a reason is a parody of justice. Funny that they were precisely demonstrating against it. - aptanalogy, on 06/01/2008, -0/+18What is all this about needing a permit? It's public property, meaning that the public has free assembly rights there. Furthermore, with the government giving out the permits, it seems that they could easily abuse that power by creating zones of "free speech" within public spaces. What if these were to be located in out-of-the way places, with the cover of "the public good"? This is an example of the government restricting your freedoms of speech and assembly in a fashion that could obviously be abused to move protesters to more "convenient" places, where their messages will less likely be heard; a permit to protest is egregious violation of Constitutional principles.
- lisaawesome, on 05/31/2008, -2/+19So aside from the title and aside from the legality of their actions let's comment on the article. I'm proud these people stood up for a serious cause and refused to back down even when facing jail time. How many of us have the balls to stand up for the rights of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? How many of us Americans have the balls to stand up for what is right? Clearly not many seeing as we have idly sat by knowing what horrible things are done in the name of America. I teared up reading about the bravery of these men and women. Digg up, digg down, these are better people than I am.
- fyngyrz, on 05/31/2008, -10/+25Yes, because SO much gets done outside the supreme court building... and no one was protesting inside.
When you need a permit to speak in a public space, you are not free. Period. - spyd3rweb, on 05/31/2008, -2/+17The Constitution makes no mention of any need of a permit, or a need to ask permission to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is a natural right that can not be denied or revoked by anyone. Asking for permission or applying for a permit would be an admission that you are waiving your rights, and submitting to an unconstitutional authority.
- u8eR, on 05/31/2008, -1/+16And so where in that does one construe that you cannot peacefully assemble on public properties, e.g. the Supreme Court Plaza?
- inactive, on 05/31/2008, -1/+15Sir, my cockatiel finds your comment rather insulting. I suggest you edit.
- Tangaroa, on 05/31/2008, -19/+32"Imagine the world was actually like what is depicted on Digg..."
The Jews controlling the Jew media have infiltrated Digg to promote their Jew candidate Barack Obama who is a Muslim terrorist who hates the Jews. Half to three quarters of Americans are sodomite al-Qaeda terrorist traitors even though al-Qaeda does not exist. In November, the landslide winner of the election will be Ron Paul.
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL!
Oh, and that UFO video is real. RON PAUL! - Tangaroa, on 05/31/2008, -22/+34One could also call it common sense that the Constitution guarantees free speech on public property such as the plaza of the Supreme Court where these people were arrested.
- LittleDas, on 05/31/2008, -10/+22"During a three-day trial, prosecutors presented a videotape that showed several officers warning the protesters to remain on the sidewalk, where demonstrations are legal, or risk arrest." FTA
Typical sensational title. Protests are not allowed on the plaza or the steps of the supreme court for a variety of reasons, one of which is simply common sense because people need to be able to access the building. If the protesters had just remained on the sidewalk, this wouldn't have happened and they wouldn't have been arrested. Though something tells me getting arrested was part of their agenda. - buckrogers1965, on 06/01/2008, -0/+12So if they stick someone in prison in solitary confinement because they powers that be disagree with what is being said, then you would still think that persons freedom of speech was not being infringed upon, because he can still say whatever he wants all alone in his cell?
Where you can speak is as important as what you say. - localzuk, on 05/31/2008, -8/+17I don't get how you can ban protest outside a court? It makes no sense. Those who are saying 'they should have applied for a permit', do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? 'Please sir, can we have a permit to protest against the actions of your bosses?' Yes, i'm sure they'll hand them out left right and center. As soon as you have to ask permission to protest, you can have it denied or controlled. That is not free speech, and I don't believe it would be constitutional over there.
We have the same problem at the moment with the restriction of protest outside the Houses of Parliament in London. It hasn't yet been properly taken to court, but I am pretty sure if it were to get to a Judicial review or to the human rights courts in the EU, the law would be found to be in direct contravention with the uk's and EU's laws on freedom of speech and assembly. - griz, on 05/31/2008, -1/+10Congress 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.
- u8eR, on 05/31/2008, -0/+9Ever heard of free speech zones? Nasty things, those are.
- Baskins, on 05/31/2008, -0/+8The theory goes that you apply for the permit to let them know when you plan to demonstrate and how many of you there'll be so they can provide some level of security for your ~protection~ (because let's face it, if you plan to demonstrate there will always be someone else who will *strongly* disagrees) and ideally some sort of overall order. However, the reality these days is that now the permit let's the police know when they should arrive and how many forces to bring to infiltrate and beat you (the demonstrators).
- griz, on 05/31/2008, -6/+14How is it sensationalist? Read the article...
"demonstrators violated the law by protesting at the plaza of the Supreme Court, where such activities are banned. "
If you can't protest at the plaza, then wouldn't it follow that your freedom of speech is being taken away? The constitution grants you the right to peaceable assembly. It doesn't say, "Except on the steps of the Supreme Court."
So, sounds rather factual to me. - thejynxed, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8Maybe that's the problem with this picture...we shouldn't need permits to peacefully assemble to exercise our First Amendment rights on public property.
Especially at a Federal Government building.
Especially since under Amendment 1, we have the right to free speech, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Narrowly drawn statutes which serve the State’s interests in security and in preventing obstruction of justice and influencing of judicial officers are constitutional. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965) . A restriction on carrying signs or placards on the grounds of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional as applied to the public sidewalks surrounding the Court, since it does not sufficiently further the governmental purposes of protecting the building and grounds, maintaining proper order, or insulating the judicial decisionmaking process from lobbying. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983) . - buckrogers1965, on 06/01/2008, -1/+9When you can't speak in an open public area that is freely accessible to foot traffic and paid for with the money and blood of citizens, then we are no longer free.
- fpaudon, on 06/01/2008, -1/+8I don't know about you guys, but this sounds a lot like conflict behind the demonstrations at Tiananmen Square. Aren't we supposed to be the country that is more free?
- lacronicus, on 05/31/2008, -14/+20"Free speech" has always been banned on the supreme court plaza; public opinion has no place in our courts system. I fully support their beliefs, but I just as much believe they ought to protest responsibly. Their actions were in clear violation of a perfectly constitutional law, they were forewarned by police that they would be arrested if they continued, and they were peacefully arrested for their actions. I'm all for civil disobedience when it is necessary, but there was absolutely no reason for these people to violate the law under these circumstances, so while their cause was just, their actions were not.
- GratefulGroover, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6I would like to make a point to say that yes, although what they were doing was technically illegal, I am pretty sure the cause they were supporting (protesting the suspension of habeas corpus, protesting torture, protesting for these individuals right to an attorney, protesting the illegal and unethical incarceration, and so on and so on) out trumps our governments red tape. I wonder, did our immigrants file for permission from the king to escape his tyranny and go found a new nation? I wonder how long the underground railroad would have lasted with this bas-ackwards concept. I wonder, would we have ever known about watergate if someone didn't break the law somewhere along the line to reveal it? I think it would do a lot of people an innumerable amount of good to rethink this idea of asking our government to protest their tyranny.
- buckrogers1965, on 06/01/2008, -2/+7I missed the part of the constitution that says you are free to assemble... as long as you get a permit. Freedom of assembly in public areas is a god given right. If the government is taking the right of assembly away, then it's the government that is wrong, not the people.
- griz, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Too damn bad!! You don't grant rights and then whittle away at them whenever it seem convenient.
- choppergirl, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5I don't need a permit to riot.
- inactive, on 05/31/2008, -15/+20Is that "free speech" just for these people or everybody? Imagine right wingers protesting abortion or Gay rights or whatever in front of the Supreme Court or inside then counter protests from Liberals, then counter, counter protests from Right wingers....Nothing would get done. It would be a mess.
- buckrogers1965, on 06/01/2008, -3/+8Just because a law was passed doesn't make that law right. Or constitutional.
To use an example of an illegal and unconstitional law that was forced on the American people in the past: If they passed a law telling people to round up all the Asians for internment camps, would you obey the law? - notoneofus, on 05/31/2008, -2/+7Dugg down for "right wing" and "sense" in the same post.
- Travelsonic, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5"... public opinion has no place in our courts system"
Then why all the arguing on our laws and how they are interpreted in the first place? I guess it has a place somewhere in the courts. - buckrogers1965, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6
Let's see what the founding fathers said about safety:
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Yep, the founding fathers really seemed that the citizens needed to be kept safe by armed guards while they themselves had to stand there disarmed.
No wait, the founding fathers cared so little about safety that they urged all following generations to bloodily resist any infringement of any right. That an armed rebellion every few years would help keep the government in their place.
You want a group of people to be safe, then arm those people and train them into an effective fighting force. Anything else and you just want those people to be good little consumers and obey their masters. - nakani, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6Where in the Constitution does it say free speech is guaranteed, but you need a permit?
- david76, on 05/31/2008, -2/+7Here's the relevant portion of the decision:
"Publicly owned or operated property does not become a 'public forum' simply because members of the public are permitted to come and go at will...." - US v. Grace http://www.acluprocon.org/SupCtCases/395UnitedStat ... - bencefeher, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5I think its BS that I need a permit to build/fix my own damn house! (let alone do something on public property)
- mushroomsrmagic, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6I would prefer anarchy to a government that puts me in a cage for many years for growing harmless plants.
- stretch611, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6And what is not reasonable for protesting on public property at a place that *used* to stand for justice.
- hmunkey, on 05/31/2008, -2/+7Liberalism contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism - localzuk, on 05/31/2008, -1/+6Then it wouldn't be a permit. It would just be notification. There is a *massive* difference.
- carpespasm, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6military installations aren't the same as public offices and court buildings.
- RyanW2050, on 05/31/2008, -5/+9RON PAUL
***** RIAA
BOSNIA SNIPER FIRE
..
3G IPHONE - jonesin, on 06/01/2008, -2/+6Word up. They can't just keep restricting speech and everything else in society with these ***** red-tape newspeak crap where you need a permit to wipe your own ass!
- Apokalyps2547, on 05/31/2008, -3/+7I imagine the idea behind the permit is ensure safety by having, say, an appropriate amount of security on-hand in case things get ugly, or to make sure the protest is carried out responsibly.
- flibuste, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5The irony of your post is well hidden, but deadly!
- choppergirl, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5Just because some judge rules that free speech is not allowed on public property, does not mean it is just. A judge, is after all, a lawyer. We all know what slime bags lawyers are. You graduate one to a judge, and all of a sudden, they magically become a paragon of justice and virtue from a total slime bag. Um, no. More like, they become power trippy mad insane... at least most of them do.
I didn't vote on this law, therefore, its a non binding contract. If I don't own public property, then I am not obligtated to pay taxes for the upkeep of said property. -
Show 51 - 100 of 218 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is