Corona Virus vs. The Bill of Rights

[gogogosandiego]

Yelling fire in a crowded, privately owned theater can get you in trouble with the government regardless of what the owner of the theatre thinks of it.

The GOVERNMENT can require you to obtain a permit (i.e. permission – and can deny that permission) to assemble on public property like parks and streets.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=gogogosandiego]Theater owners and churches have nothing to do with this.

I posted 2 examples where the government has determined that there are limitations on First Amendment Rights.[/quote]

No, you didn’t. First ammendment rights don’t extend to how private property owners treat people on their own property. The government must follow the first ammendment at all times. Private property owners can restrict speech and behavior all they want on their own property.

So I agree, theater owners and churches have nothing to do with this, yet those are the examples you cited.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a violation of the property owner’s rights to maintain their theater the way they want.

Government does not require licenses for people to assemble on private property, especially church property.[/quote]

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not 1st am protected, even if the property owner herself does the yelling. Jeez louise.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=sdduuuude][quote=gogogosandiego]Theater owners and churches have nothing to do with this.

I posted 2 examples where the government has determined that there are limitations on First Amendment Rights.[/quote]

No, you didn’t. First ammendment rights don’t extend to how private property owners treat people on their own property. The government must follow the first ammendment at all times. Private property owners can restrict speech and behavior all they want on their own property.

So I agree, theater owners and churches have nothing to do with this, yet those are the examples you cited.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a violation of the property owner’s rights to maintain their theater the way they want.

Government does not require licenses for people to assemble on private property, especially church property.[/quote]

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not 1st am protected, even if the property owner herself does the yelling. Jeez louise.[/quote]

I am agreeing with that it is not protected.

The reason it is not protected is because the offended party is not the government and the property owner can restrict this behavior. The property owner could also post a sign that says “It is OK to yell fire in this theater when it is crowded and by being here you agree that this behavior is not regulated in any way.” then it would be protected behavior, but not by the first ammendment.

Good point about the property owner yelling. I believe that is a tacit agreement between the owner and guests that he will not endanger them or disrupt their experience.

The other guy was suggesting that because the first ammendment doesn’t protect yelling fire in a crowded theater that it makes sense for the government to arrest a preacher for holding mass. I don’t see the connection.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=scaredyclassic]And if the govt cant restrict anything you do on your “private property”, try turning your abode into a strip club.[/quote]

You missed my point. My point was that the property owner can restrict behavior on their own property to a greater extent that the government can restrict behavior – because the bill of rights does not apply to private citizens.

From your own post:
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/the-right-to-gather-has-some-restrictions.html

“Because the First Amendment applies only to government actions or laws that violate rights, private property owners are generally free to keep groups from protesting or gathering on their property.” Thisis one reason why YFIACT is not covered by the bill of rights.

Another is that, YFINACT violates the “peaceably” restriction. So, that is not an example where the government has violated the bill of rights.

If Amazon takes a book off their website they are not violating the author’s right of free speech as protected by the bill of rights.

With the strip club – Now you’ve gone all the way into zoning laws. Unconstitutional ? To me, probably but I am serious about my freedom.

But arresting people peaceably assembling in a private religious institution? That seems like a definite violation. How can it not be, oh great reader of constitutional cases ?

And to gogogosandiego, show me an example of where the Government has restricted a peaceful assembly at a church, ever, and not been shot down. Don’t show me a situation where they require permits for assembly on public property or prosecution of non-peaceful behavior such as YFIACT.

By the way, are Onion articles ever real ? I thought they were all made up.

[gogogosandiego]

Tomorrow in KY when idiots go to Church and don’t maintain social distancing etc their license plate # will be written down and they will be required to self quarantine for 14 days.

Should get fun if they don’t.

Regardless, none of this is tyranny.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=gogogosandiego]Tomorrow in KY when idiots go to Church and don’t maintain social distancing etc their license plate # will be written down and they will be required to self quarantine for 14 days. [/quote]

That actually makes perfect sense to me.

Arresting the minister does not, nor does arresting a dude for playing baseball in an empty park with his daughter.

Overall, I also think it is not tyranny. But, I have definitely been on watch for cases where it starts to be and the case in Florida is the only one, to me, that seems really bad.

In the end I think all of this curve-flattening is voluntary and government officials, while “issuing orders” know it and are behaving as such – not taking extreme measures to instill martial law.

Except for the odd toilet-licker or fruit-spitter, it is an impressive display of people imposing significant inconveniences on themselves to help a small portion of the world that is at-risk.

For now I think everyone “gets it.” When it gets to a point – as it will in San Diego soon – where people feel like it is not necessary and the governor keeps those orders open, it could get interesting.

[scaredyclassic]

All I’m saying is that there are always exceptions to rules, and that the meaning of the constitution ultimately isnt what you or what I or the Congress or the Senate or the president thinks it should be, but what the us supreme court says it is.

Even if the supreme court opinion is idiotic, or disingenuous, or some Scalia Jedi level bullshit, by the very nature of the rules of the game, ever since Marbury v. Madison, the court opinion defines what the constitution means.

Not what the plain text says. What the court says it means.

I dont know much more than you, except that at least I’m aware I dont know.

I would never say, HOW COULD IT NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION without doing a few dozen hours of research reading cases.

For instance…

It would SEEM like you couldnt round up members of one ethnic group and lock them up without running afoul of the constitution, right?

That’s gotta violate a whole bunch of stuff in the constitution.

I mean, HOW COULD IT NOT violate the constit.? Definitely doesnt sound kosher.

Well, read Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

i think it’s still good [meaning not overruled, not morally good] law.

The govt has in the past, and may permissibly tomorrow,

round up members of one ethnic group,

lock them up,,

no problem,

no constitutional violation,

under the right circs.

Even if you or I think it’s wrong, shameful, obviously unconstitutional, our opinion is irrelevant.

The constitution means what the us sup. Ct says it means. Because that is the way the legal system works.

See Marbury v. Madison.

Just because you have a copy of the 1st am and you or I have read it DOES NOT mean you or I understand anything.

I am not a Great Reader of constitutional cases.

But I am a reader.

And the meaning of the constitution is in the interpretation, not in the text of the document.

So, you may be right.

Maybe these laws restricting assembly will ultimately be found by the us supreme court to violate the constit.

But maybe not.

Personally, I have no fucking idea what the supreme court will do anymore.

Definitely do not bet $$ on any outcome as a sure thing.

And I dont care how serious you are about “freedom”, zoning laws are definitely constitutional. That’s well settled.

[outtamojo]

[quote=gogogosandiego]Tomorrow in KY when idiots go to Church and don’t maintain social distancing etc their license plate # will be written down and they will be required to self quarantine for 14 days.

Should get fun if they don’t.

Regardless, none of this is tyranny.[/quote]

I always find it ironic that none of the major religions have anything resembling a bill of rights or protection against arbitrary judgement.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=gogogosandiego]Tomorrow in KY when idiots go to Church and don’t maintain social distancing etc their license plate # will be written down and they will be required to self quarantine for 14 days.

Should get fun if they don’t.

Regardless, none of this is tyranny.[/quote]

I always find it ironic that none of the major religions have anything resembling a bill of rights or protection against arbitrary judgement.[/quote]

No right to a jury either, just one crazy ass judge whose final judgment is final.

A judge so wacked out he killed everyone earth except for noah and buds because they were not acting ad he liked.

A judge so wacked out he tortured Job for sport over a bet with the devil.

A judge so wacked out he thought it would be best to have a child and the kill him on a cross.

Nope, i move to recuse this judge. I’m take a different one

[sdduuuude]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

The Epicurian Paradox.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=gogogosandiego]Tomorrow in KY when idiots go to Church and don’t maintain social distancing etc their license plate # will be written down and they will be required to self quarantine for 14 days.

Should get fun if they don’t.

Regardless, none of this is tyranny.[/quote]

I always find it ironic that none of the major religions have anything resembling a bill of rights or protection against arbitrary judgement.[/quote]

Interesting thought. Participation in the religion is 100% voluntary so the only thing you would be “protected” from is shame within the organization, not from any real rights violation like incarceration.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=outtamojo][quote=gogogosandiego]Tomorrow in KY when idiots go to Church and don’t maintain social distancing etc their license plate # will be written down and they will be required to self quarantine for 14 days.

Should get fun if they don’t.

Regardless, none of this is tyranny.[/quote]

I always find it ironic that none of the major religions have anything resembling a bill of rights or protection against arbitrary judgement.[/quote]

Interesting thought. Participation in the religion is 100% voluntary so the only thing you would be “protected” from is shame within the organization, not from any real rights violation like incarceration.[/quote]

Some sects are tough to escape.

UNORTHODOX on netflix was fun.

but yeah theoretically you c as n leave anytime. Sort of.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Some sects are tough to escape[/quote]

Did you watch Leah Remini’s Scientology show ?
That was pretty infuriating to me. Worth watching.

[sdduuuude]

From the other thread:

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=outtamojo]Sounds like there will be civil unrest soon.[/quote]

Yeah. The protests are starting already.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/us/protests-coronavirus-stay-home-orders/index.html%5B/quote%5D

This is the conflict I was expecting.

The right to peaceably assemble and protest government action in a location where gatherings of a certain size have been forbidden.

[outtamojo]

Commander in chief telling folks to liberate their state and mentioning 2nd amendment in the same breath is just bonkers.

[Author]

Posts