Because he doesn't need a permit to speak his piece, he just needs one to do it there. Your rights are always somewhat more restricted on government property.

Because you can't Dunning-Kruger your way past 60+ years of legal precedent by people much more familiar with what the laws and constitution really mean than you are. This is a good overview of why:
AFC Legal Resources - Free Speech on Private Property

I'm sure sarn would also think it's ridiculous that you'd get arrested for walking into an airport and screaming "I have a bomb!"

By that kind of logic people would be able to preach in favour of child abuse on your private property.

Don't be ridiculous, "I have a bomb" doesn't mention 'Jesus' or 'gays' even once.

Smart move, since the pure textualist interpretation is in conflict with both the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution and the long-standing and mostly unquestioned practice of outlawing defamation.



Accurate.



A reading of the First Amendment that allows the government to restrict "injurious" speech is also at odds with the text of the First Amendment. Welcome to the club.



Well, I guess we had to get to the strawman eventually. Obviously people needn't in all circumstances be protected from annoyance. Usually it's perfectly reasonable to expect they'll do that by themselves by averting their eyes or leaving. But the law has always recognized the legitimacy of limitations on obnoxious speech based on the time, place, or manner of that speech. If this bothers you, feel free not to call the police when I show up across the street from your house at 2 a.m. with a megaphone and a copy of Ulysses.



Those people can turn off their televisions when the President is making a speech. Why are you having such trouble with this?

I don't think I saw anyone bring this up, but apologies if someone has: for the same reason you cannot campaign outside of a voting center on election day, you cannot read the Bible outside of the DMV.

I agree that there is a point where someone's freedoms need to be restricted or limited for the safety of others. For example, screaming "I have a bomb" in a public place..

But the issue at hand, had nothing to do with anyone's safety. It has to do with people feeling uncomfortable. Guess what. When people speak their minds, other people get uncomfortable. It's going to happen. Those people still have a right to speak their minds. How far do we let it go? If we continue along this path, 50 years from now there will be laws in place that basically neutralize our Constitutional rights. They've already started with the law in question here, and with a thousand other laws (patriot act, for example). While they might not completely abolish our rights in one fell swoop, they are setting us on a path that will ultimately result in that.

Sarn's next on my Ulysses megaphone world tour.

I think you're being a little extreme here, Sarn. He can still preach - in a church, on a street corner, in the newspaper or another publication, on the internet, etc. You're acting like the secret police is going to track him down and send him to a Gulag for speaking about his beliefs in an appropriate forum.

They still let the Westboro Baptists go out and preach.

No, it's not the bottom line, because there is far more to US law than just the Constitution.


The amendment is really about limiting freedom of ideas and expression. You cannot just go around saying whatever you want because it can start to infringe on other people's rights. For instance, I cannot stand outside a butcher's shop and shout at customers telling them that killing animals is wrong and that they should be vegans. This infringe's on the butcher's right to sell meat, because there's a good chance my banter will make his customers uncomfortable enough to just leave and go somewhere else. In this instance I am basically robbing him of customers, and I can't do that.


"Free speech zones" may be absurd but that's not what this is. This isn't just a guy standing on a street corner where people can just walk on by. He is interfering with other people's lives, and THAT is the problem.


You think it's unconstitutional because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You apparently think it's okay for anyone to walk around and say whatever they want at any time and in any place. I mean, for ****'s sake, what is wrong with you?

It should be just as illegal to proslitize (sp?) as it is to stand on a corner and yell racial slurs. The only reason they dont arrest the crazy preacher in louisville that does this on halloween is because he always brings a massive group.

When people feel uncomfortable, they can usually change the channel or walk away. Not in this instance. The people are there because they have to be there in some capacity, and this guy didn't make it easy for them. If they want to finish their business at the DMV (which is probably important) they have to listen to this ****** preach.

Sarn, you're probably the kind of guy who thinks it's a good idea to have prayer in public schools, aren't you?

You misunderstood. I'll rephrase. He did none of those things while he was reading the bible aloud.



This doesn't really apply here. The text of the First Amendment, as already quoted by Sarn, makes clear it is in reference to Congress. Just because others are more educated and familiar with the laws and twisting of the meaning of the constitution doesn't mean that those less so can't make reasonable and differing interpretations of clearly worded text.

Although I believe the First Amendment applies at the federal level, it has been held to apply to "lower" governments. Going by that then it should be clear that religious and political speech should be especially protected on public property. I mean, what would be the point of having "free speech" if you couldn't practice it at the places where it should be most necessary? Also, in this instance the man was outside the facility that was, presumably, closed at the time. He was in no way hampering the conduct of official business inside the office.

Now, by my interpretation lower governments certainly do have the ability to contradict the First Amendment because it should not apply to them. In this case I would have to review the California constitution to see what applicable content applies but under the current understanding it's a moot point.

I also don't believe that "free speech" means freedom from the consequences of your speech. Others disagree. For example, if speech is slanderous or perjury. Let's say you're giving your speech while blocking an entrance or through a megaphone at 2 AM. Or maybe you're spewing and displaying hateful, homophobic rhetoric outside a military funeral while others mourn. Oh, wait, that one is protected.



Reading comprehension for the lose!

i gotta disagree with you to some extent on this one sarn, and usually im pretty staunchly in favor of the 1st amendment. but you cant just go ANYWHERE and say stuff. can i go into your house and preach without your permission? obviously there has to be some limitations on where you can exercise your freedom of speech. maybe i want to practce my feedom of speech inside a bank vault, or on the floor of the senate, while its in session.

the problem with whats going on is not what he is saying, but where he is saying it.

No, that is exactly what applies here. Did you bother to read through that site I linked at all? It demonstrates a number of legal precedents and cases explaining why it is not in fact perfectly clear. If you want to insist that you are the only one qualified to know what the laws /truly/ mean and that those cases decided by people with an actual legal education are just "twisting" the law instead of interpreting it, then I can't really help you here. Your tiny world of narcissistic certainty sounds quite cozy, but I would rather die than live there.



This was on state property. Not public property. That makes all the difference.

Nope. This is the problem with this topic. There are many factors to this debate and each one is a debate unto itself.



Please explain the difference.

The state will not endorse any religion, by letting him preach on state property that could construe that the state is endorsing religion. Therefore, you cannot preach on state property.

Actually those cases and explanations describe precisely why you have no idea what you're actually talking about. Willfully ignoring resources that clearly state the legal precedent in private, public, nonpublic, settings for the First Amendment and then in the next breath asking me to explain the differences instead of RTFM adds nothing to the debate but but the stench of incorrigible shame. You can't just say "There are many factors to this topic, so I'll ignore the resources and citations provided and just talk out of my inexplicably authoritative ass".

As you stated, this is a complex debate, not some pre-school tea party where you expect everyone to spoon-feed you answers and then patiently wipe your infantile vomit off of the topic every time something doesn't sit well in your tummy.

Say more about the "consequences" of these activities.



I guess that's as good an explanation for your failure to grasp the concept as any.

Wookie is a modern day Socrates.

Can't we just stick to the notion of "If people want to hear you preach they'll go to your chuch on a Sunday"?

No. The difference between state and public property. That's what I asked her because she said it made all the difference.



I used to have no problem with you but now you're getting annoying. Referencing a page on the internet versus making your own case? I'm well aware of legal arguments with regards to the constitution.

I give as good as I get. Learn to be civil.



You weren't aware that slander, libel, perjury, etc. could result in criminal charges or law suits? What about disturbing the peace? How about the idiotic scenario proposed here about preaching in someone's house? Trespassing. Or the old "yell fire in a crowded theater" scenario?



You're thinking too small and my second, if not first, post on the topic should be clear to someone at your academic level.

I know how to be civil. I usually am even, I just got bored of you refusing to educate yourself on anything that was posted and instead demanding people break it down for you into small understandable pieces. That article was "on the internet", just like the news stories and the original video and a copy of the California penal code are all "on the internet". This forum is "on the internet", so you may as well dismiss anything I would have explained explicitly in my post as just something written on the internet.

That list I linked earlier breaks down precedents and cases for the legal difference between private, public, nonpublic, spaces as it comes to the First Amendment and why owners/administrators of private/nonpublic spaces can make legal exceptions (eg malls disallowing organizations/individuals from distributing fliers to shoppers). I don't really have time to break it down each segment for you into soundbites, but just waiting for everyone else to do your research or at least basic reading for you doesn't disprove its position.

I already posted one breakdown of it earlier as cited by the arresting officer:
The DMV is a place to do DMV-related business and is legally a venue for nothing else.
Anyone wishing to speak/present/protest there (or eg the Capital) needed to have applied for and received a permit to do so.
The church did not.
Therefore their readings there were illegal.

Sassy brings up a good point as well, but with the permit it is explicit that the application process is content-neutral, that is whether they are planning on reading Ulysses, the California Penal Code, or the Bible, they still need to follow the same process and secure the same permit in advance.

Since you refuse to read up on it, here is a what 15 seconds of research returns:



SOURCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ownership

On the other hand, would you have even posted this if the man was reading from the Quran and had gotten arrested while doing so on state property?

That was something that he should've learned in Econ 101 when discussing what's non-rivalrous and non-excludeable, and how that plays into what type of good it is.

DMV - Excludeable, and somewhat Rivalrous. Definitely state property, not a public good.

This thread reminds me of something.

From your own cite state ownership is also known as public ownership. State/government property is by definition public property. Of course the term is generally used to describe public use areas but the fact is that the government doesn't really own anything. Of course they effectively operate as owners and much of this is semantics but my point is that the people are the real owners.



I haven't asked anyone to break anything down to me. I asked you what the difference was between state and public property because there is none and you said it made all the difference. The other thing I did was ask MacFarlane to go ahead and give me his rebuttal first since we've been going at these things long enough that I figured he would already have an idea at my argument. That was more a time saving measure than anything else.

All of the legal precedent in the world doesn't matter when it's founded on egregious decisions. Our entire system is an abomination right now, a mockery of the founders, and unconstitutional. Strangely, it's all legal. There's precedent after all.

Ok so your argument really isn't that it was an illegal arrest, but that it /should/ have been an illegal arrest based on how you think the laws should be?

You act like the Constitution is some sacrosanct document penned in its exact form by scribes from heaven.
In 201 years (between 1791 and 1992) there have been 27 Amendments added onto it since it is a living document which from time to time [about every decade] requires additions and considerations as culture and the nation grow and evolve. Throwing out the last 220 years of legal history in the US since every decision since the original writing of it (or Bill of Rights at least) has been a progressive corruption and mockery of its founders is deeply troubling and negligent. There are other countries with more archaic legal corpuses that you would probably be quite welcome in. The US sure would be a better place if slaves weren't freed and women couldn't vote, right?

Edit:

Here is another analysis of public vs nonpublic or limited public forums:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7016/Freedom-Speech-Public-Forum-Regulation.html
eg:

This thread is fun

Of course I was. What's the difference, in your mind, between government imposing "consequences" on speech and government infringing on free speech? Why does the arrest of the man preaching outside the DMV fall under infringement rather than consequences?

Oh, what nonsense. I think you've taken it to be axiomatic that the courts can't be trusted just to justify your own intellectual laziness. You do it so you can assume away any court decision, or series of decisions, that's inconsistent with your predetermined conclusions, without ever having to address those decisions on their merits. Are there bad decisions? Certainly. How do I know this? I've read those cases. I can point to specific flaws in the majority's reasoning. It's not because I read the text of the Constitution or a statute, formed a superficial understanding of what it meant, and refused to acknowledge any argument to the contrary.

What I don't understand is why he thinks people have a right to shove their beliefs down other people's throat?

I am in a line to go to court, due to business that is specifically related to that building (preaching is not one of its functions), and plus I am a (insert any of the OTHER belief systems here) and I HAVE to listen to some man preach in a place where he was not invited or permitted to do so?

Have you ever thought what it would be like to be on other side of the fence?

Just imagine if it was a Muslim standing there preaching his beliefs. Sarn would want him arrested. Of course I have no doubt that Sarn is the type of guy who thought it was awful that they wanted to build an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan. First Amendment rights: Only applicable to white Christians.

Freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech. People are going to say things with which you disagree, and that's fine. You should be happy they have the right to say it.

Somewhere.

Over there.

This is only an issue because Sarn has the same persecution complex as the typical white trash deep-south-political pseudo-christians who seriously believe white people are going extinct just because it's possible for a woman of color to get more money and respect than they can. The second some white guy gets arrested for being a douche it's gotta be because of one of them, one of them there others (gays, blacks, jews, ay-rabs, others) because they're so uncompromisingly inferior that they can't conceive of the idea that just because in their infantile misfiring shriveled tiny brain they were doing the Lord's work they might have actually broken a real law.

Michael, we would have a fine time in person. This type of forum is extremely difficult to have deep conversations in a timely manner. Through casual conversation we could easily come to understand our differences. Time and energy is the limiting factor here.

I'll answer your first question by saying that, generally, it's not the speech that provokes the consequences but rather the actual, or maybe even possible, "secondary effects". I can't hide behind free speech to defame someone. If my fallacious speech causes harm to somebody I shouldn't be able to claim "First Amendment". I would also like to point out that the laws of government, in this land anyway, tend to be enacted by those chosen to represent us. In effect the government is the people so when you say "government imposing" it should, in theory, be the will of the people.

With regard to your second question I would say there were no "secondary effects" of consequence. Business at the facility was not disrupted. Some people might have been annoyed or, according to the audio in the clip, amused but certainly nothing that seemed arrest worthy. In my ever so humble opinion, that is.



Funny thing is he probably wouldn't have been arrested in the first place.



I don't believe that every court decision is bad. There have been many good court decisions but the fact that the SCOTUS can essentially write law through decisions (which only require a simple majority, currently only five justices) is a perversion. Judicial veto was debated and ultimately dismissed with a presidential veto being the end result. At least a presidential veto can be overturned somewhat easily but it's ridiculous to believe that the founders intended for it to take a super majority of the country (amendment process) to overturn the judgement of five justices). Of course SCOTUS found different.

edit: removed language