7 comments

• 

  commprof

  11 months ago

  Mr. Whitehead brings forth some great questions. Is it any wonder that after 8 years of Carl Rove, a White House supportive of misinformation campaigns and the use of 'scare tactics' within a complicit/naive media, that we have a public fearful of protest? And while these reports appear to be a significant oppression of free speech, government officials seem to often overreach in a rush to ensure public safety. One thing the constitutional author does downplay, however, is the ability for dissenters of any stripe to come up with creative strategies of their own to ensure that 'voice' is protected in a post-9/11 America. Journalists who witnessed protest events in the past, especially in the 60's and 70's, know too well that even with an unlimited basket of legislation and law enforcement, voices of righteousness seem to always find a path.
  reply
• 

  wildflower

  11 months ago

  Totalitarian governments don't always suddenly swoop in and take the citizens' rights away. Totalitarianism can slip through the back door and subtly take our rights away, one at a time, until we wake up one day and realize they're gone.
  reply
• 

  johnhkennedy

  11 months ago

  Mayor Hickenloopers Police are already putting pressure on long standing Denver protesters, enforcing long ignored and un-Constitutional laws and threatening protesters.
  
  I amazed you haven't published a direct link to the USAToday.com article and to the original "Comments" by myself and others on your related article
  
  http://www.coloradoindependent.com/view/usa-tod...
  
  
  This is the original USA Today.com link to Mayor Hickenloopers rebuttal to
  the USAToday Editorial:
  
  (With readers COMMENTS
  including regarding current Denver Police efforts to suppress
  the free speech rights of our group of protesters two weeks ago )
  
  Denver Mayor Hickenloopers rebuttal:
  Opposing view: We support free expression
  
  http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/07/opposing...
  
  As you can see I posted a lengthy comment detailing our Impeach Colorado Coalition's recent experience in dealing with threats from the Denver police while protesting in front of Rep. DeGette's office and Channel-7 and Channel-31.
  
  Our experience suggests that the Denver police are currently engaged in a campaign of threats of "disturbing the peace" and "conspiracy" charges against any/all protesters and that this new threat is happening now and is not just "planning for DNC radicals".
  
  This threat has caused our group to stop using "Honk To Impeach" signs, which the Denver Police claim is a "conspiracy" to violate Denver laws. We do not have the financial resources to oppose them in court and must concentrate on the goal of impeachment, not trying to change local laws. Since there are so few groups pushing for impeachment we feel we must concentrate on our original goal, having impeachment hearings prior to the election.
  
  In an article published on Friday, February 1, 2008 by The Detroit News (Michigan) entitled: Judge Rules In Favor of First Amendment,
  reply
• 

  kidkeenan

  11 months ago

  The Enforcement Act (17 Stat. 13)
  
  How about using the anti Klan Act against Chief Bootlicker.
  
  KEY PROVISIONS AND THEIR CURRENT RELEVANCE
  
  Of the many sections of the Ku Klux Klan Act, the most influential today is the little debated section 1983. The section provides in part:
  
  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....
  
  The language of the statute is much the same as it was in 1871. Interestingly, the 1874 revisions resulted in the apparently inadvertent insertion of the words "and laws," which has resulted in a large expansion of the statute's coverage. Reference to the District of Columbia and to territories was added in 1979.
  
  Section 1983 allows people to sue for state and local violations of the Constitution and federal law. It enables private citizens to affirmatively enforce these rights. Lawsuits may be brought in federal or state court, and the remedies available for violations include damages and injunctive relief. A key to Section 1983's revitalization was when the Supreme Court breathed new life into the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court developed an extensive theoretical framework for the due process and equal protection clauses, under which it recognized a wide variety of federally protected rights. Also, in Monroe v. Pape (1961), the Supreme Court interpreted Section 1983's "under color of law" requirement to cover cases in which state and local officials were not acting in accordance with state law but in violation of it. This was the beginning of a series of interpretations that loosened the judicial stranglehold on civil rights legislation that had been passed during the Reconstruction era.
  reply
• 

  wildflower

  11 months ago

  It's strange they have stopped the impeachment horn-honking after all this time, probably it has intensified because people are becoming increasingly frustrated. The pillage of our country has quickened this year, it's like they want to get all they can in their few remaining months in office, now banks are folding, the Constitution seems to be going out the window...
  
  Well, only 177 days until they leave office (unless Kucinich gets them impeached sooner).
  
  Honk, honk, honk.
  reply
• 

  Ted Faigle

  10 months ago

  The United States of America itself is our free speech zone. It is so designated by the highest law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. We need to find the most creative ways to challenge the concept of limiting free speech to caged zones and dedicate ourselves to standing up to those who would subvert the Constitution no matter what political party they belong to. The very idea is outrageously offensive to anyone who really believes in the basic freedoms upon which this great country was founded.
  reply
• 

  Libertarian

  10 months ago

  Speaking of free speech, where is my comment that I posted here the other day?
  reply