PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

FREE SPEECH
by JOEBIALEK Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 6:34 PM

LIMITS ON FIRST AMENDMENT

One of the issues begining to concern me is the efforts by some to shut down main thoroughfares in major United States cities across the country. This is done as an extension of the anti-war protest against President Bush. Let us look at the first amendment of the United States Constitution:

AMENDMENT I
Congress 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

The key word in this particular case is "peaceably". When a crowd of protesters goes beyond the rules of organized protest and begins creating such a ruckus as to serve as a diversion for a potential terrorist attack, that expression is as dangerous as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Accordingly, I am calling on all political leaders across the country to speak out against these mob tirades. Public safety should not be compromised because certain protesters do not understand the boundaries of public protest.

add your comments

I'm waiting
by Travis Hicks Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 8:04 PM

You still haven't made your point, if you indeed had one. The junior high civics chestnut about yelling "fire" in a theatre is irrelevant to the current situation.

FUN FACT:
You may be surprised to learn that automobiles have NO Constitutional rights.

add your comments

Counter Protest Reaction
by Prodigal Yunzer Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 8:26 PM

When your exercise of your rights offends the general public, you can whine and cry all you want, but the police will gladly show you the reality of being a grown up and facing the consequences of your action.
When you exercise your skeletal muscles, do they grow strong without some effort and pain? If our government does things that you do not like and you protest their actions, you inflame the advocates of that action. There was no such thing as a police officer when the First Amendment was written, and the printing press was a rarity. As our government became larger and more intrusive into everyone's lives, they invented police to keep the public order. Pretty much the sole reason for the police is to stop people like you from burning down the courthouse if your protest gets a little too hyperactive. They are not compelled by law to protect you as an individual. They are armed cash registers for the just-us system who also provide security for government property and officials.

add your comments

Fun Facts For The Peace Movement
by Libertarian Avenger Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 9:41 PM

FACT: The right to free speech is not absolute and may be restricted in those situations where public safety and the greater societal good are at risk.

add your comments

Odd
by Phoenix Friday, Apr. 04, 2003 at 11:16 PM

Please define "Societal Good", I mean I am quite sure that you also are well aware that there exsists no such thing as absolute morals, so when you invoke societal good I am naturaly curious what you mean.
The other thing, about protesters making the neccesary diversion for terroist attacks: If in fact this were true there would no longer be an America. You see, there have been thousands of protests in America that were both loud and noisy and probaly very much what you call a terrorist diversion. Thus if terroists were given such added ability to strike during protests, then why can I not recall the last large terroist strike that occured during a protest? If this were true why didn't terror strikes occur during all of these rowdy protests?
Also for your information: do some research on the founding fathers, you will notice what forms of protest they used against the British monarchy. All of their tactics seem to involve very illegal actions(By todays standard) i.e. the Boston Tea Party, smuggling, etc..., the point of saying this is: The founding fathers are the ones who drafted the Constitution, thus they more then likely had in mind such ideas as acceptable protest. Unless of course you consider Patrick Henry a terrorist supporter. Also, to who ever mentioned the police and the Constitution and how times are different: The Constitution creates a list of natural, or inherent, rights which are inalienable. Thus meaning if the times change the rights themselves do not. So, the rights themselves are still the exact same regardless of police. If you believe by the way that our goverment is completely just in it's curtailing of rights then I suggest you read up on the second draft for the succesor of the Patriot Acts: It has a clause that allows for the depotation of American natural born citizens. Odd, where do you deport someone who is from America, I guess you would deport them to their home country of America,
Peace

add your comments

freedom
by Nathan J Saturday, Apr. 05, 2003 at 8:43 PM

utah phillips said it best:
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears...Freedom is something you assume. Then you wait for someone to try to take it away from you. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free."
but perhaps Ben Franklin said it even better:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

add your comments