Free Speech Zones

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Free Speech Zones

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:08 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

I didn't even know those things existed.

The 1st Amendment affirms that you can say whatever you wish, but within certain boundaries (here we go).
Of course, these days, this is only acceptable unless someone feels hurt. Ha.
Freedom of press? OK. Is it fine to have 30 persons exercising this freedom in the same place, where they chose (newspaper office)?

But the whole thing about having police forces surrounding you and forcing you into small areas like lepers so you could still have a right to enjoy the 1st Amendment is laughable.
Essentially, it means that you may say whatever you want, but not anywhere, and you shall not find yourself to be doing so alongside a bunch of other people you agree with, at the risk of creating an unlawful cohesive group of agreeing individuals.

Of course speech is meaningless if you don't have at least one person who listens.
Plus each human occupies a minimal surface area on the ground which cannot be shrunk, no matter what.
Meaning that the more people who will agree with you, the more surface area will be occupied by the formed group of people in agreement.
We also find that, by default, some individuals belonging to this group will exist at various locations in the world.
It is considered unlawful if the occupied total surface area reaches a given concentration (ratio) of man/woman per square meter, unless you accept to be moved to a caged area, surrounded by barbwire, outside of medias' spotlights.

But what is the legal ratio?

Joke aside, oddly enough, I remember a note about the people's right to assemble peaceably. That, obviously, anywhere.
There's no need to worry. Of course, the definition of what fits peace standards can always be lowered. Tomorrow, your simple presence, say existence, could be a risk to good order. Why not?
Before, you'd accept that you could assemble anywhere you wanted, peaceably, of course.
However, it quickly became evident that an alteration was needed.
So it's understood, now, that as soon as you're asked to move out, you must comply, because a police officer says so and he upholds the law, which is a guarantee of peace (security). Otherwise he'd supposedly have no power to ask you to leave. Upholding is his thing. The only excuse available to a police agent is that you assemble unpeaceably. This largely works because the individual has no power to declare what is peaceful or not. Only the cop can. There's no debate to be held.
A police force can estimate that your presence to be unlawful. Then one needs to consider how much area, and what types of areas can governmental forces declare unsuited to peaceful assemblies.
Assuredly, if large areas are declared inaccessible to assemblies of "free speechers" because they pose a threat to peace, nothing could stop police forces (or anything representing state power) from declaring even larger areas hostile to assemblies.
What is the theoretical limit?
You're given a freedom of speech, but you're not guaranteed a right to be heard. Irritatingly enough, you could exercise your freedom of speech in a cave, with your hands tied to a chair. After all, if the cop says that this place is "safe", that's good.
Ok, that's an exaggeration. Still, the moment you accept the idea of being put behind fences or bars before you could have a right to speak your mind, perhaps you should directly go to jail?

The irony of it is how they named those special zones "1st Amendment zones".
Literally meaning that the state recognizes that such 1st Amendment is upheld and active in those zones, not outside. Again, no worries! :)
And only if you're nice, right?
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Free Speech Zones

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:53 am

Is the Constitution that outdated? Did the clever minds behind it not think it thorough?

The entirety of the legitimacy of even declaring a FSZ solely rests on the fact that the 1st Amendment only deals with content, not where free speech could be held.
You may say it was implied that such a right would apply over the entirety of the territory. In fact, that's exactly what it is. Unless specified, the Constitution is meant for the entirety of the United States of America, right? Not just Mrs. Summervale's backyard.
Otherwise, the sinister implication would be that there are places where the Constitution works, and other places in the USA where it's not acknowledged. Areas where you can speak your mind and others where you cannot, waiting for a police officer to relocate you to a "safe" zone where the obvious threat you were, not because of what you were saying but of where you were saying it, is, for a lack of better terms, neutralized.
The idea clearly being that applying your most essential and constitutional right outside of restricted areas is an act of aggression towards the government or some private properties.

Way to go, land of liberty. The idea quite sounds preposterous.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Speech Zones

Post by 2046 » Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:32 pm

Welcome to the Tea Party.

Post Reply