“Cleveland Will Create a City Within a City to Keep the RNC Civil”
Don’t you have to get the RNC to be civil before you can keep it civil?
1 Like
Anyone with a legal background have information on the legal justification for the government creating new powers that fly in the face of the very first restriction placed on governmental power?
5 Likes
IANAL, but, from Wikipedia:
In 1939, the United States Supreme Court found in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that public streets and parks “have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” In the later Thornhill v. Alabama case, the court found that picketing and marching in public areas is protected by the United States Constitution as free speech. However, subsequent rulings – Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida – found that picketing is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations on demonstrations may affect the time, place, and manner of those demonstrations, but may not discriminate based on the content of the demonstration.
3 Likes
Yeah, that’s the same useless crap I read as well. Thanks for linking it though. But considering the Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the power of the government and given that the first amendment specifically prohibits abridging (to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents - to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail -to deprive; cut off) what I’m trying to learn is by what legal theory or fiction did the government grant itself the power to abridge?
Also, unless you are picketing, how do any of those final rulings have any bearing?
Edit to add another way to consider this… why do supporters of something have greater access to public places and streets than those who oppose it? Why are supporters of a thing not subject to the same time and place restrictions? Why isn’t there equal protection under the law?
4 Likes
It’s not a First Amendment Zone, it’s a Gated Community for Republicans.
1 Like
Not a republican here, but just wondering how the Dem convention zoning will differ…
Marc Bolton?
Aren’t they all?
2 Likes
Yes … I understand how you could mistake the Flayed Man as Mark Bolton.
Assholes can stand right outside a Planned Paremthood and terrorize women going in because it’s free speech, but free speech in this case gets segregated? WTF?
17 Likes
As with anything else: because the wealthy and powerful write the law. And control when and how it’s enforced.
3 Likes
Welcome to Fascism.
Controlling of space is fascistic.
6 Likes
I’m from Detroit. Born and raised, and proud of it too.
And I’m glad it’s Cleveland and not us hosting the convention, so there’s that. 
6 Likes
Hey, it’s cool. I was born and raised here:
3 Likes
Ok, and thanks. 
1 Like
Do you mean “Gun free zones”? Not that I disagree with the concept, but they do exist…
Does this mean that Cleveland doesn’t rock anymore?
3 Likes
Roose Bolton?
