HATETHESTATE / SO THEY CALL IT FREEDOM

[observer]

I'm not talking about the judiciary. I'm talking about the local executive branch, like police, city councils, and other minor functionaries who rule over their little fiefdoms.

The judiciary is where disputes regarding the actions of the executive branch, whether at the national or level are addressed. If and I emphasis the "IF" there is wrong doing by the executive department, the court serves as the check & balance to those actions.

The public can and should mate change within the executive branch to issues that are perceived to be wrong, but the court does provide an alternative, if necessary.

 

[FattMatt]

I'm not talking about the judiciary. I'm talking about the local executive branch, like police, city councils, and other minor functionaries who rule over their little fiefdoms.

Have you got any experience of being a public servant? You seem to have a view that they are out to get the community except their own.

 

[RogueRivered]

Have you got any experience of being a public servant? You seem to have a view that they are out to get the community except their own.

Well, actually, yes, I do. Plus, I've been watching these videos for the last 4 or 5 years that opened my eyes to a lot of abuses. I've also been on the receiving end of government disregard for the laws they are supposed to uphold.

 

[ed2276]

So, in that case, are you saying that the change the auditors are hoping for is to be taught by the government that they don't have the rights they think they do? That seems like an odd thing to wish for. Especially when you know that the heavy hand of government rarely errs in the favor of freedom. The default is usually the denial of rights, whether they exist or not.

What I'm saying is that if the odditors truly believe that, as things stand right now, they have unlimited access to publicly owned buildings for unlimited exercise of 1st Amendment protected rights their behavior in those properties is being informed by a right that doesn't exist. The United States Supreme Court has already held, many times, that the right of access to public property is not unlimited and that 1st Amendment activity on those properties is subject to restriction/regulation. That is the state of the law that exists right now; not the odditors' oft repeated platitudes.
If the odditors wish to challenge that, there are routes available for them to take. So far, I have not seen any odditor take it to court and get a civil injunction or take a criminal conviction up through the appellate courts and get a ruling that reverses the current US Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue.

 

[observer]

RogueRivered you have demonstrated a strong conviction to be supportive of the auditors and for that I will congratulate you. I encourage you to keep on open mind to the comments and resources being offered here not to necessarily change your mind but to help you understand the law and how it can impact the auditors. I would also encourage to explore other resources including Discord to share and learn from others that are involved in the community. This does not have to be an us against you scenario and I look forward to continued dialogue with you as other cases and issues come forth.

 

[RogueRivered]

What I'm saying is that if the odditors truly believe that, as things stand right now, they have unlimited access to publicly owned buildings for unlimited exercise of 1st Amendment protected rights their behavior in those properties is being informed by a right that doesn't exist. The United States Supreme Court has already held, many times, that the right of access to public property is not unlimited and that 1st Amendment activity on those properties is subject to restriction/regulation. That is the state of the law that exists right now; not the odditors' oft repeated platitudes.
If the odditors wish to challenge that, there are routes available for them to take. So far, I have not seen any odditor take it to court and get a civil injunction or take a criminal conviction up through the appellate courts and get a ruling that reverses the current US Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue.

Nobody said they did have an "unlimited" right. They are only filming in places the public has a right to be -- entrances, foyers, lobbies, etc. The federal statutes are clear that filming in these areas is lawful for news purposes. As for state and municipal government, they have their own laws and statutes, and the Courts often have judge's orders that deny the right to film. Cities tend to overreact with poorly thought-out, hasty restrictions. Too bad the government makes it so hard on people to pursue their rights through the courts. Locking them up, putting on bond restrictions, and all other sorts of coercive actions against people who are most likely innocent (certainly not PROVEN guilty), plus knowing that it is extremely expensive to get quality legal representation, puts the government is the driver's seat. A lot of people are forced to make plea deals. It's a travesty!