It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nazi brown shirts break up Dem poltical rally

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   
there you go again with your spin on things Colon-el. Your changing your tune a little now aren't you?? Your first position was that the first ammendment only applied to 'public schools' now you are spinning it a little to support your arguement....(HYPOCRITE)

made by Colon-el ..... The school was not a government school so the First Amendment doesn't apply. You're on school property, you go by school rules.




posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
No, I'm just telling you the law which you have failed to refute, "Mr. I graduated from law school too."



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
478 U.S. 675 (1986)
Docket Number: 84-1667
Abstract



Argued:
March 3, 1986

Decided:
July 7, 1986


Subjects: First Amendment: Miscellaneous



Facts of the Case
At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days.


Question Presented
Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?


Conclusion
No. The Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and the supposed sexual content of Fraser's message at the assembly. Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."

>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with the right to peaceflul assembly.


[Edited on 1-21-2004 by krankinkx]



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Tinker et al. v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District et al.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No. 21
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

393 U.S. 503

Argued November 12, 1968

Decided February 24, 1969



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Syllabus
Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:

1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.

2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.

3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.

DISPOSITION: 383 F.2d 988, reversed and remanded. [504]

COLON-EL PAY PARTICULARLY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT LAST ENTRY IN THE DECISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Edited on 1-21-2004 by krankinkx]



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
How's it feel to get spanked!!?? Next time you would like to argue case law, let me know. I need a good laugh. NIMROD

[Edited on 1-21-2004 by krankinkx]



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Let's look at that last line for a sec if you wanna do some reading comphrehension.


3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.

Check the italics and lie to me that there was NO disturbance whatsoever at that bake sale.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Because those Young Republicans held an unpopular view does not make that a disturbance. If some radical left wing Commi lovin' Pinko Lib doesn't like the message and decides to tip over a table ...that does not constitute a disturbance...IDIOT!!

Edwards v. South Carolina
372 U.S. 229 (1963)
Docket Number: 86
Abstract



Argued:
December 13, 1962

Decided:
February 25, 1963


Subjects: First Amendment: Free Exercise of Religion



Facts of the Case
The 187 petitioners in this case, all of whom were black, organized a march to the South Carolina State House grounds in which small groups of fifteen would walk in an open public area protesting the policies of segregation in their state. The march was peaceful, did not block pedestrian or vehicular traffic, and was conducted in an orderly fashion on public property. A group of approximately thirty police officers confronted the group and ordered its members to disperse or to submit to arrest. The marchers did not disperse, and instead began singing religious and patriotic songs like the Star Spangled Banner. They were arrested and later convicted on a charge of breach of the peace.


Question Presented
Did the arrests and convictions of the marchers violate their freedom of speech, assembly, and petition for redress of their grievances as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?


Conclusion
Yes. The Court held that the arrests and convictions violated the rights of the marchers. They were convicted of an offense which the South Carolina Supreme Court, in upholding the convictions, described as "not susceptible of exact definition." The evidence used to prosecute the marchers did not even remotely prove that their actions were violent. Hence, Justice Stewart found clear constitutional violations in this case. Stewart called the marchers' actions an exercise of First Amendment rights "in their most pristine and classic form" and emphasized that a state cannot "make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views" as South Carolina attempted to do here.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Pay close attention to the last entry in the decision.


Using your argument...Your "PEACEFUL" democratic rally to solicit votes was a disturbance because it turned into a shoving match. (Say no HYPOCRITE) You are not only stupid, your a loser too!!!!



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I repectfully suggest that Colon-el go roll himself a 'fatty' and chill. 'Cause he fo' sho' ain't no lawyer!!!



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by krankinkx
Pay close attention to the last entry in the decision.


Using your argument...Your "PEACEFUL" democratic rally to solicit votes was a disturbance because it turned into a shoving match. (Say no HYPOCRITE) You are not only stupid, your a loser too!!!!


So, I see that you admit there was a disturbance so you continue on with this new argument.

Well, this peaceful rally was no distubance b/c it was advocating the right to vote which was broken up by the repugnat thugs. What you're doing is using these same rules to apply your unpopular, racist Jim Crow, good ole boy stance.

Nothing to see here.

[Edited on 21-1-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by krankinkx
I repectfully suggest that Colon-el go roll himself a 'fatty' and chill. 'Cause he fo' sho' ain't no lawyer!!!


I would suggest you go back and have more kids with your sister.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 11:12 PM
link   
And finally, using your own argument here:

"Conclusion
Yes. The Court held that the arrests and convictions violated the rights of the marchers. They were convicted of an offense which the South Carolina Supreme Court, in upholding the convictions, described as "not susceptible of exact definition." The evidence used to prosecute the marchers did not even remotely prove that their actions were violent. Hence, Justice Stewart found clear constitutional violations in this case. Stewart called the marchers' actions an exercise of First Amendment rights "in their most pristine and classic form" and emphasized that a state cannot "make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views" as South Carolina attempted to do here."

There is one problem with it.


It never took place at a school so it doesn't apply. I think we're done.

[Edited on 21-1-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Interesting





[Edited on 22-1-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 02:51 AM
link   
You merely need to apply the case law to your current civil rights abuse. Stopping a peaceful demonstration on the grounds of a public Institution simply because "some" view it as offensive Violates the first ammendment.
And to clarify, no it was not a disturbance....Some Commi Lib who gets upset with the theme of the demonstration does not a disturbance make.................IDIOT.......You lose!

[Edited on 1-22-2004 by krankinkx]



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
I would suggest you go back and have more kids with your sister.


Yo' Mamma spoiled me for other women. (HYPOCRITE)



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by krankinkx
You merely need to apply the case law to your current civil rights abuse. Stopping a peaceful demonstration on the grounds of a public Institution simply because "some" view it as offensive Violates the first ammendment.
And to clarify, no it was not a disturbance....Some Commi Lib who gets upset with the theme of the demonstration does not a disturbance make.................IDIOT.......You lose!

[Edited on 1-22-2004 by krankinkx]


I'm really tired of slamming your monkey ass. Give someone else a chance.

I blasted you on the Bill of Rights and how it goes to government conduct. I blasted you on public schools.

We discussed disturbances and schools prior and I blasted you with your OWN case law:

A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.

Now you're making up law. I getting bored with kicking your moneky ass. Give someone else a chance. There's a lot more repugnants out there than you, rookie.


[Edited on 22-1-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
If you , or anyone else would like to check the case law in reference it is readily available on the web...................IDIOT...............LOSER...................HYPOCRITE.

And the the only thing that got spanked was yo' Mamma.



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Don't pop a blood vessel ok? You won't be the first to get blasted by me and yu won't be the last. Just take some time to recuperate, repugnant.



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   
It takes much more than the likes of you to give rise to my temper. I take what you say for what it is worth....The rantings of an artificially inflated, Hypocritical, Liberal, Democratic, Anti-Ameriican REPUGNANT....Did I mention That you lie.....A Lot!!


You never went to Law School.....I checked..............LIAR!

On the flip side...Have a nice Day




A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.

By the way this reference from Tinker et al. v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District et al. confirms exactly my point you idiot.

[Edited on 1-22-2004 by krankinkx]



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by krankinkx
It takes much more than the likes of you to give rise to my temper. I take what you say for what it is worth....The rantings of an artificially inflated, Hypocritical, Liberal, Democratic, Anti-Ameriican REPUGNANT....Did I mention That you lie.....A Lot!!


You never went to Law School.....I checked..............LIAR!

On the flip side...Have a nice Day


ok, whatever.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join