It doesn't matter what you think, he had no right to be where he was. He may have had a right to speak, but that's not the controlling legal issue. It's the same thing if you trespass to take a picture. If what you are photographing is visible from a public place you have the right to photograph it, just not from where you are, which is why you could be in trouble.
Bob W wrote: >> if >> you attempt to disrupt the meeting you can be ejected and >> arrested. He >> was being a nuisance, then trespassing, and creating a >> disturbance, and >> > > In my view none of that matters. What he was doing was a fairly > routine bit of heckling. In the UK this is par for the course and we > expect our politicians to have the wit to deal with it themselves, > verbally. They'll get far worse heckling if and when they get into > parliament. A robust democracy is all about this kind of thing. It's > only places like Burma where they feel the need to beat people up for > disagreeing with them. > > Almost. > > This is how our former deputy PM deals with protest: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRQDnGTcc4A > > -- > Bob > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of P. J. Alling >> Sent: 26 September 2007 16:07 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: OT - Pythonesque 2 >> >> Churches and schools, even publicly funded schools are considered >> private property under most if not all state laws. I know >> that may seem >> strange but it's true. They are not public space such as a >> public street >> public sidewalk or Town Square. There are exceptions, here in New >> England, if you live in a town with town meeting government, and the >> > > >> school auditorium is used for the meeting, or really small >> places where >> the town meeting house might double as the church, for that >> time, it is >> public space, but even then you are under Roberts Rules of >> Order, and if >> you attempt to disrupt the meeting you can be ejected and >> arrested. He >> was being a nuisance, then trespassing, and creating a >> disturbance, and >> eventually resisting arrest. (It's amazing how quickly being >> a nuisance >> can become resisting arrest). The only absolute right you have to >> freedom of speech is in the public square, truly public >> property, (town >> or city hall, meeting rooms etc.), and on your own property, and >> > even > >> there you're not allowed to force people to listen to you, if >> you try to >> force them that can actually be construed as assault, kidnapping or >> worse, you should know that. There may be attempts at constitutional >> > > >> actions but no judge in his right mind should allow them to >> arise in his >> or her court. >> >> frank theriault wrote: >> >>> On 9/26/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law... 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." This doesn't seem to cover meetings held on private >>>> property where the owners can have idiots ejected or arrested for >>>> trespass, simply by revoking their permission for said idiot to >>>> > be > >>>> there. Secondly he didn't seem to petitioning the government, >>>> > just > >>>> badgering a public official. The fact that the cops who >>>> >> were called by >> >>>> the management over reacted is not per se a violation of the >>>> > idiots > >>>> freedom of speech, certainly not by congress, or the state >>>> >> government, >> >>>> .though he may have basis for an action against those >>>> >> police officers >> >>>> for battery. >>>> >>>> >>> Private property? >>> >>> That appears to be a school (funded by taxpayers) or a >>> >> church (exempt >> >>> from paying taxes and as such "state funded") or a town hall. No >>> matter what it is, I'd say they're in a public or >>> >> pseudo-public space, >> >>> and in any event it's surely a meeting to which the general >>> >> public was >> >>> invited. >>> >>> What those cops (or security people, or whoever those goons >>> >> were) did >> >>> was ~absolutely~ a violation of his freedom of speech, right to >>> assemble, etc. The question would be, "were the capitalist >>> stormtroopers acting as authorized agents of the state, or >>> >> did they go >> >>> beyond the scope of their jurisdiction to the point that >>> >> their actions >> >>> do not constitute state intervention, thus rendering them solely >>> liable for their inexcusable actions?" >>> >>> If they were private rent-a-cops, they and their employers will be >>> liable for (at the very least) assault and battery, if they >>> >> were real >> >>> cops, there could be a whole bevy of constitutional actions >>> >> that could >> >>> arise from this. >>> >>> cheers, >>> frank >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Remember, it's pillage then burn. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly >> above and follow the directions. >> >> >> > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
