COVID Economy

[MU_B]

Serious question for you and Lenny ...
Do you see raising funds to support the exercise of a legal and Constitutionally protected right - the posting of bond - the same as raising funds to support the exercise of a criminal act, i.e. blocking traffic and commerce?

Serious question for you.

So all those other protests  just occurred in city parks, parking lots, and stuff?  Never shut down any roads, interstates, or other "commerce".  Pretty sure we all saw plenty of traffic blocked by those mostly peaceful protestors exercising their constitutionally protected rights.  Let's not pretend this outrage is over the traffic they are blocking.

I'm not Lenny, but no I don't see any difference between these two groups fundraising efforts to support free speech.  Although, I'm not sure the leader of the Trucker Convoy bought a new house.  But nothing would surprise me.

[jesmu84]

It's not a trucker convoy.

[Pakuni]

Serious question for you.

So all those other protests  just occurred in city parks, parking lots, and stuff?  Never shut down any roads, interstates, or other "commerce".  Pretty sure we all saw plenty of traffic blocked by those mostly peaceful protestors exercising their constitutionally protected rights.  Let's not pretend this outrage is over the traffic they are blocking.

I'm not Lenny, but no I don't see any difference between these two groups fundraising efforts to support free speech.  Although, I'm not sure the leader of the Trucker Convoy bought a new house.  But nothing would surprise me.

The "truckers" weren't merely exercising free speech. Their blocking of traffic and disruption of commerce wasn't an unfortunate side effect of their protest. It was the goal of their protest.
And, of course, you're entirely missing the point.
By equating the funding of the "trucker" protest with posting bond for arrested BLM protesters, Lenny and Wags seem to be suggesting that the legal exercise of a fundamental right - one so essential that our founding fathers saw fit to codify it in the Bill of Rights - is really no different than funding criminal acts.
That's why I asked them for clarification. Because it reads to me that they view the posting of bond as something on par with funding the "truckers'" actions.

[Lighthouse 84]

The "truckers" weren't merely exercising free speech. Their blocking of traffic and disruption of commerce wasn't an unfortunate side effect of their protest. It was the goal of their protest.
And, of course, you're entirely missing the point.
By equating the funding of the "trucker" protest with posting bond for arrested BLM protesters, Lenny and Wags seem to be suggesting that the legal exercise of a fundamental right - one so essential that our founding fathers saw fit to codify it in the Bill of Rights - is really no different than funding criminal acts.
That's why I asked them for clarification. Because it reads to me that they view the posting of bond as something on par with funding the "truckers'" actions.

Just so I understand your argument, if the blocking of traffic and disruption of commerce is the “goal” of the protest, it’s not free speech and therefore not protected? 

[jesmu84]

The US constitution does not apply in Canada

[Pakuni]

Just so I understand your argument, if the blocking of traffic and disruption of commerce is the “goal” of the protest, it’s not free speech and therefore not protected?

No, that's not my argument.
That's the ACLU's argument. Take it up with them, I guess?

II. A. Blocking traffic and entrances
Protesters do not have a First Amendment right to block pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or to prevent entry and exit from buildings. For example, a federal court recently held that the Chicago police did not violate the First Amendment by arresting protesters who were impeding a heavy flow of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks near Chicago’s Soldier Field, and who disobeyed a police order to step off the sidewalk and onto the immediately adjacent gravel. Likewise, a Chicago ordinance prohibits intentional obstruction of vehicle traffic.
Indeed, the general public has a right to freedom of movement that police must protect. For example, to address widespread unlawful blockades of the entrances to reproductive healthcare facilities, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which prohibits the use of force, threats, or obstructions to interfere with access to such facilities.

III. B. Harassment
Protesters do not have a First Amendment right to harass other members of the public. For example, there is no right to block another person’s freedom of movement in the public way, and then force them to listen to an unwanted message.

https://www.aclu-il.org/en/news/when-else-can-government-regulate-time-place-and-manner-protest

[Lighthouse 84]

No, that's not my argument.
That's the ACLU's argument. Take it up with them, I guess?

II. A. Blocking traffic and entrances
Protesters do not have a First Amendment right to block pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or to prevent entry and exit from buildings. For example, a federal court recently held that the Chicago police did not violate the First Amendment by arresting protesters who were impeding a heavy flow of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks near Chicago’s Soldier Field, and who disobeyed a police order to step off the sidewalk and onto the immediately adjacent gravel. Likewise, a Chicago ordinance prohibits intentional obstruction of vehicle traffic.
Indeed, the general public has a right to freedom of movement that police must protect. For example, to address widespread unlawful blockades of the entrances to reproductive healthcare facilities, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which prohibits the use of force, threats, or obstructions to interfere with access to such facilities.

III. B. Harassment
Protesters do not have a First Amendment right to harass other members of the public. For example, there is no right to block another person’s freedom of movement in the public way, and then force them to listen to an unwanted message.

https://www.aclu-il.org/en/news/when-else-can-government-regulate-time-place-and-manner-protest

Fair enough. Where was the outrage, not saying from you, when BLM blocked freeways in Texas, California, Oklahoma, Washington, Minnesota, Virginia, among other places, multiple times?   

[Jockey]

Just so I understand your argument, if the blocking of traffic and disruption of commerce is the “goal” of the protest, it’s not free speech and therefore not protected?

If someone erected a barricade around your house and refused to let you leave to go to work, what would your response be?

[🏀]

If someone erected a barricade around your house and refused to let you leave to go to work, what would your response be?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

If someone erected a barricade around your house and refused to let you leave to go to work, what would your response be?

Are you talking about Portland, Seattle, or MPLS?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

No, that's not my argument.
That's the ACLU's argument. Take it up with them, I guess?

II. A. Blocking traffic and entrances
Protesters do not have a First Amendment right to block pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or to prevent entry and exit from buildings. For example, a federal court recently held that the Chicago police did not violate the First Amendment by arresting protesters who were impeding a heavy flow of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks near Chicago’s Soldier Field, and who disobeyed a police order to step off the sidewalk and onto the immediately adjacent gravel. Likewise, a Chicago ordinance prohibits intentional obstruction of vehicle traffic.
Indeed, the general public has a right to freedom of movement that police must protect. For example, to address widespread unlawful blockades of the entrances to reproductive healthcare facilities, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which prohibits the use of force, threats, or obstructions to interfere with access to such facilities.

III. B. Harassment
Protesters do not have a First Amendment right to harass other members of the public. For example, there is no right to block another person’s freedom of movement in the public way, and then force them to listen to an unwanted message.

https://www.aclu-il.org/en/news/when-else-can-government-regulate-time-place-and-manner-protest

The ACLU maybe cared about rights and liberties at one point in their existence, but now they're just another left wing lawsuit machine.

[Pakuni]

Fair enough. Where was the outrage, not saying from you, when BLM blocked freeways in Texas, California, Oklahoma, Washington, Minnesota, Virginia, among other places, multiple times?

I don't think there was any lack of outrage out there about BLM protests.
And many BLM protests were dispersed, and hundreds of protesters arrested, for exactly this thing.

But really, it comes down to point of view for a lot of people, right? The people most outraged by BLM protests are portraying Canadian protesters are heroes (see: Fox News' fawning coverage).
And many who ardently support BLM see the Canadian trucker protests as villainous.

Personally, I think one side has a righteous cause and the other does not, but I don't support either side disrupting the lives of bystanders and damaging businesses.

[Lighthouse 84]

If someone erected a barricade around your house and refused to let you leave to go to work, what would your response be?

First, call the police. They are there to serve and protect. I’d expect them to do that. Then, probably file civil suit against the  someone who wouldn’t let me leave my own house.  Not that I’d get any recovery since someone who did that probably has no job or money.   So if you’re thinking about doing that to someone Jock, bad idea.

[Jockey]

First, call the police. They are there to serve and protect. I’d expect them to do that. Then, probably file civil suit against the  someone who wouldn’t let me leave my own house.  Not that I’d get any recovery since someone who did that probably has no job or money.   So if you’re thinking about doing that to someone Jock, bad idea.

Just good to know that you support Trudeau’s actions in Canada.

[Lighthouse 84]

Just good to know that you support Trudeau’s actions in Canada.

Quite the leap you make there Jocko. 

Don't change.  And I mean that.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Fair enough. Where was the outrage, not saying from you, when BLM blocked freeways in Texas, California, Oklahoma, Washington, Minnesota, Virginia, among other places, multiple times?

BLM protesters blocked I-95 in New Haven and they were cleared and arrested.
Oh and there weren't there for weeks, but more like minutes.

[Jockey]

Quite the leap you make there Jocko. 

Don't change.  And I mean that.

My mistake. I interpreted your post as saying you would want the police to stop the people who were refusing to let you leave your house to get to work. I figured you would extend your belief to those in the US and Canada who were kept from their jobs

[TSmith34, Inc.]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/04/jobs-report-february-2022.html

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 678,000 in February and the unemployment rate fell to 3.8%.
Wall Street had been looking for respective figures of 440,000 and 3.9%.
Wages were little changed on the month and up 5.1% for the year, well below expectations.
Leisure and hospitality led job gains, followed by professional and business services and health care.

[jesmu84]

White House discussing further student loan pause.

[4everwarriors]

Bye sum votes and just universally thair up da paper, hey?

[Lennys Tap]

The ACLU maybe cared about rights and liberties at one point in their existence, but now they're just another left wing lawsuit machine.

100% true. I lived close to Skokie, Il. when the ACLU represented the American Nazi Party in a lawsuit defending their right to march. They believed in free speech and freedom of assembly for all, even (especially?) the people who views they found to be the most abhorrent. They knew that if anyone’s rights were abrogated then everyone’s were in danger. They (and their allies on the left) don’t believe that anymore.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

100% true. I lived close to Skokie, Il. when the ACLU represented the American Nazi Party in a lawsuit defending their right to march. They believed in free speech and freedom of assembly for all, even (especially?) the people who views they found to be the most abhorrent. They knew that if anyone’s rights were abrogated then everyone’s were in danger. They (and their allies on the left) don’t believe that anymore.

What's the holdup?

Ah, the bums won their court case so their marching.

Who?

Illinois nazis.

I hate Illinois nazis.

[Pakuni]

100% true. I lived close to Skokie, Il. when the ACLU represented the American Nazi Party in a lawsuit defending their right to march. They believed in free speech and freedom of assembly for all, even (especially?) the people who views they found to be the most abhorrent. They knew that if anyone’s rights were abrogated then everyone’s were in danger. They (and their allies on the left) don’t believe that anymore.

Google really isn't that hard. Use it occasionally and you may not post horribly wrong information as often.


Last weekend’s deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, has put the American Civil Liberties Union on the defensive for representing the white supremacists and generated furious debate over First Amendment speech rights.
The ACLU has been here before.
In a statement posted Tuesday night, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero insisted hateful, bigoted speech must be aired.
“Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground,” Romero wrote. “Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it.”
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/aclu-free-speech-white-supremacy/index.html

Since 2017, we have supported the constitutional rights of the NRA, the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity Foundation, anti-Semitic protesters, Trump supporters, Trump himself, Republican challengers to a Democratic gerrymander, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, and conservative and anti-gay student groups, to name but a few. We have filed multiple Supreme Court briefs with the Cato Institute, the American Conservative Union, and the Institute for Justice. Here is just a sample of the work we have done since 2017 in which we have defended or stood alongside conservative voices and groups, because we believe constitutional principle demanded it, even if we disagreed with what the groups and individuals had to say.

2017

    We challenged the D.C. Metro’s refusal to post an advertisement for alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos’ book;
    We defended Donald Trump’s speech rights when he was charged with inciting violence at a Trump campaign rally;
    We filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of a tea party supporter challenging a ban on wearing political insignia or apparel at polling places;
    With the NRA, we supported a federal law that reduced obstacles to people with mental illness to buy guns, which we viewed as harming people with disabilities; and
    We advocated in defense of the First Amendment rights of a Columbus City Schools employee who posted an anti-gay slur on Facebook, and who faced being fired for doing so.

2018

    We filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA’s First Amendment challenge to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s directive to New York financial services organizations to reconsider the “reputational risks” of doing business with the NRA and other gun rights groups;
    We filed an amicus brief supporting Republican voters’ constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court to a Maryland partisan gerrymander that created a Democratic district for which one of our biggest donors, David Trone, was running, and ultimately won; and
    We sent a public demand letter to the Vermont governor, asking that he to stop banning gun-rights activists who posted negative comments, almost entirely political, on his official page.

2019

    We challenged Arkansas State’s “free speech” zones as applied to a homophobic and racist student organization;
    We won an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Koala v. Khosla), on behalf of a conservative student magazine denied funding by the University of California at San Diego after they published a story mocking “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces”; and
    We filed comments on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ Title IX rule that supported fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, access to all the evidence, and delays in proceedings if the student accused of wrongdoing also faced a student criminal investigation, even as we criticized the rule for reducing the obligations of schools to respond to reports of sexual harassment.

2020

    We filed a brief in Michigan supporting anti-Semitic protesters picketing in front of a synagogue on the Sabbath;
    We filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court with the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Institute for Justice in support of a case challenging a free speech zone by an evangelical Christian, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom;
    We represented a number of voters, including a Republican, to defend drive-thru voting, which was set up in Houston in November to enable safe voting during the pandemic;
    We filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting a Catholic school’s religious right to discriminate in the hiring and firing of a teacher with significant religious responsibilities;
    We sent a letter on behalf of a Trump supporter in Georgia who was being criminally prosecuted for flying a flag on his own property that said, “Trump 2020: unnatural carnal knowledge Your Feelings.” Charges were dropped after the prosecutor received our letter;
    We protested New York Attorney General Letitia James’ effort to shut down the NRA based on the wrongdoing of some of its leaders as a violation of the right of association;
    We filed a brief in the Supreme Court with the Cato Institute, the Institute for Justice, the R Street Institute, and the Rutherford Institute on behalf of property rights of people declaring bankruptcy; and
    We filed an amicus brief in Esshaki v. Whitmer in support of a conservative Republican candidate for Congress who was challenging a signature collection requirement in the midst of the pandemic. The ballot access restriction favored the incumbent, a Democrat in a toss-up congressional district.

2021

    We filed a Supreme Court brief supporting the conservative nonprofits Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Society in a challenge to California’s donor disclosure rule as violating the First Amendment;
    We filed two Supreme Court briefs (here and here) with conservative organizations, including the Cato Institute, the American Conservative Union, R Street, and the Rutherford Institute, in cases challenging warrantless searches of homes;
    We sent a letter after the Capitol insurrection to U.S. Department of Interior opposing D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s suggestion to cancel all permits through President Biden’s inauguration; and
    We questioned Twitter and Facebook’s bans of President Trump’s account.
    We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit arguing that the First Amendment places limits on schools’ authority to punish students for expressing themselves outside of school, even when that expression includes highly offensive anti-semitic language.
    We defended New Jersey and Kansas residents’ First Amendment right to hang up “unnatural carnal knowledge Biden” signs outside their homes. The First Amendment protects our right to express our opinions on political issues without fear of punishment by the government.
    We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a conservative Christian group’s claim that the city of Boston violated its First Amendment rights by refusing to fly a Christian flag, featuring the Latin cross, from a flagpole in front of City Hall.
    We issued a statement expressing concerns about the FBI’s raid of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s home, urging the court to appoint a special master to supervise law enforcement review of seized materials.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate/

[TSmith34, Inc.]

100% true. I lived close to Skokie, Il. when the ACLU represented the American Nazi Party in a lawsuit defending their right to march. They believed in free speech and freedom of assembly for all, even (especially?) the people who views they found to be the most abhorrent. They knew that if anyone’s rights were abrogated then everyone’s were in danger. They (and their allies on the left) don’t believe that anymore.

Its just amazing that no matter how many times "free speech" is explained to you guys, you persist in having no idea what it means. So once more:

[MU82]

Google really isn't that hard. Use it occasionally and you may not post horribly wrong information as often.


Last weekend’s deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, has put the American Civil Liberties Union on the defensive for representing the white supremacists and generated furious debate over First Amendment speech rights.
The ACLU has been here before.
In a statement posted Tuesday night, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero insisted hateful, bigoted speech must be aired.
“Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground,” Romero wrote. “Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it.”
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/aclu-free-speech-white-supremacy/index.html

Since 2017, we have supported the constitutional rights of the NRA, the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity Foundation, anti-Semitic protesters, Trump supporters, Trump himself, Republican challengers to a Democratic gerrymander, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, and conservative and anti-gay student groups, to name but a few. We have filed multiple Supreme Court briefs with the Cato Institute, the American Conservative Union, and the Institute for Justice. Here is just a sample of the work we have done since 2017 in which we have defended or stood alongside conservative voices and groups, because we believe constitutional principle demanded it, even if we disagreed with what the groups and individuals had to say.

2017

    We challenged the D.C. Metro’s refusal to post an advertisement for alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos’ book;
    We defended Donald Trump’s speech rights when he was charged with inciting violence at a Trump campaign rally;
    We filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of a tea party supporter challenging a ban on wearing political insignia or apparel at polling places;
    With the NRA, we supported a federal law that reduced obstacles to people with mental illness to buy guns, which we viewed as harming people with disabilities; and
    We advocated in defense of the First Amendment rights of a Columbus City Schools employee who posted an anti-gay slur on Facebook, and who faced being fired for doing so.

2018

    We filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA’s First Amendment challenge to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s directive to New York financial services organizations to reconsider the “reputational risks” of doing business with the NRA and other gun rights groups;
    We filed an amicus brief supporting Republican voters’ constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court to a Maryland partisan gerrymander that created a Democratic district for which one of our biggest donors, David Trone, was running, and ultimately won; and
    We sent a public demand letter to the Vermont governor, asking that he to stop banning gun-rights activists who posted negative comments, almost entirely political, on his official page.

2019

    We challenged Arkansas State’s “free speech” zones as applied to a homophobic and racist student organization;
    We won an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Koala v. Khosla), on behalf of a conservative student magazine denied funding by the University of California at San Diego after they published a story mocking “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces”; and
    We filed comments on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ Title IX rule that supported fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, access to all the evidence, and delays in proceedings if the student accused of wrongdoing also faced a student criminal investigation, even as we criticized the rule for reducing the obligations of schools to respond to reports of sexual harassment.

2020

    We filed a brief in Michigan supporting anti-Semitic protesters picketing in front of a synagogue on the Sabbath;
    We filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court with the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Institute for Justice in support of a case challenging a free speech zone by an evangelical Christian, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom;
    We represented a number of voters, including a Republican, to defend drive-thru voting, which was set up in Houston in November to enable safe voting during the pandemic;
    We filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting a Catholic school’s religious right to discriminate in the hiring and firing of a teacher with significant religious responsibilities;
    We sent a letter on behalf of a Trump supporter in Georgia who was being criminally prosecuted for flying a flag on his own property that said, “Trump 2020: unnatural carnal knowledge Your Feelings.” Charges were dropped after the prosecutor received our letter;
    We protested New York Attorney General Letitia James’ effort to shut down the NRA based on the wrongdoing of some of its leaders as a violation of the right of association;
    We filed a brief in the Supreme Court with the Cato Institute, the Institute for Justice, the R Street Institute, and the Rutherford Institute on behalf of property rights of people declaring bankruptcy; and
    We filed an amicus brief in Esshaki v. Whitmer in support of a conservative Republican candidate for Congress who was challenging a signature collection requirement in the midst of the pandemic. The ballot access restriction favored the incumbent, a Democrat in a toss-up congressional district.

2021

    We filed a Supreme Court brief supporting the conservative nonprofits Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Society in a challenge to California’s donor disclosure rule as violating the First Amendment;
    We filed two Supreme Court briefs (here and here) with conservative organizations, including the Cato Institute, the American Conservative Union, R Street, and the Rutherford Institute, in cases challenging warrantless searches of homes;
    We sent a letter after the Capitol insurrection to U.S. Department of Interior opposing D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s suggestion to cancel all permits through President Biden’s inauguration; and
    We questioned Twitter and Facebook’s bans of President Trump’s account.
    We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit arguing that the First Amendment places limits on schools’ authority to punish students for expressing themselves outside of school, even when that expression includes highly offensive anti-semitic language.
    We defended New Jersey and Kansas residents’ First Amendment right to hang up “unnatural carnal knowledge Biden” signs outside their homes. The First Amendment protects our right to express our opinions on political issues without fear of punishment by the government.
    We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a conservative Christian group’s claim that the city of Boston violated its First Amendment rights by refusing to fly a Christian flag, featuring the Latin cross, from a flagpole in front of City Hall.
    We issued a statement expressing concerns about the FBI’s raid of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s home, urging the court to appoint a special master to supervise law enforcement review of seized materials.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate/