As America waits for the gathering of losers that is referred to officially as the Democratic National Convention, some people are expressing concerns that the Constitution has effectively been repealed in the convention zone in Charlotte.
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:
Starting Saturday, someone walking through Charlotte's central business district could run afoul of the law by carrying water bottles, hair spray, socks or magic markers under sweeping security rules enacted ahead of the Democratic National Convention.
It would take a particularly strict reading of the rules for someone to be arrested simply for possessing one of those items, but the possibility exists — which worries protesters and free speech advocates. They fear authorities could trample on people's constitutional rights in the name of protecting public safety.
The changes to city ordinances adopted earlier this year for "extraordinary events" ban a long list of actions and items that would otherwise be legal from a more than 100-square-block zone. The area includes spots as much as a mile from the sports venues where the Democratic Party events are to be held.
The new rules have already been used for events before the convention and will remain on the books after it's over.
The special rules that went into effect at 12:01 a.m. Saturday could also bar anyone other than government employees from carrying handbags and backpacks or possessing soda cans, drink coolers, scarves, bike helmets, baby strollers or pets not specifically permitted as service animals.
A section banning "a container or object of sufficient weight to be used as a projectile" could be interpreted to include almost anything, from an apple to an iPhone.
Those caught violating any of these prohibitions could be subject to arrest and jail.
Similar prohibitions have been in place at past conventions, especially those following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Outside the Republican National Convention in 2004, New York City police carried out mass arrests, detaining hundreds of people for days in miserable conditions on a Hudson River pier. Most of those charges were later dropped or thrown out, triggering dozens of lawsuits against the city.
At the rain-soaked Republican Convention in Tampa earlier this week, officials banned umbrellas, baseballs and puppet-making materials. There, the rules went largely untested after only a fraction of the expected protesters showed up due to worries about Hurricane Isaac.
Charlotte's Uptown business district is home to the headquarters of Bank of America and substantial operations for Wells Fargo, two of the nation's largest financial institutions. The "March on Wall Street South" scheduled for Sunday is expected to draw thousands of protesters.
Members of Occupy Charlotte, who are helping to organize the march, said turnout for that and other protests could get a boost from demonstrators deterred from Tampa by the weather. At the other end of the political spectrum, tea party activists and other right wing groups are also planning protests.
The Democrats always claim to be champions of civil liberties until they become burdensome for the Party of Treason.
In case no one remembers, Charlotte is a part of the United States. We have a Constitution that guarantees freedom and liberty. While the Democrats prefer the police state, that is not America.
At this point, these rules are so draconian, I hope Charlotte is sued early and often. Perhaps if the city is bankrupted through civil rights lawsuits, no other city will be so anxious to try and act as if citizens do not have rights.
http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topic/show?id=3355873%3ATopic%3A2186766&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure
State Department partners with Organization of Islamic Cooperation in what could lead to criminalizing free speech. “That could never happen here.” When we shine a light on the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria for “denigrating religion,” that’s how some people respond. Or when we warn about sharia law creeping into America. Or 85 sharia courts in Britain. Or “no go zones” in France. And of course, our State Department would NEVER agree to a UN resolution that has the practical effect of criminalizing free speech, right? The column below that recently appeared in Forbes (highlights added) is longer than we normally put out, but it is SO IMPORTANT that you be aware of what’s coming our way. Please take a few minutes to read it—because your first amendment rights may soon be in jeopardy. Of course, that could never happen here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
CCTA AT THE NEW BERN ALDERMAN MEETING
SUN JOURNAL NEW BERN
by Eddie Fitzgerald (Lynn's comments in blue!)
November 9, 2011
In a split decision Tuesday night, New Bern aldermen approved a resolution limiting time for citizens to express their concerns to the board.
Mayor Lee Bettis and aldermen Bernard White and Dana Outlaw voted against the proposed four-minute time limitation that will be imposed during the public-comment period of the first regular board meeting each month. (YEAH and THANKS!)
The resolution passed 4-3. Alderman Victor Taylor made a motion to adopt the resolution; it was seconded by Alderman Dennis Bucher.
Alderman Sabrina Bengel said it was important for her as a citizen and alderman that people have the right to speak on issues, but there needed to be more order during the public meetings.
“You have the right to call any of us and I encourage you to do it,” Bengel said.
When groups speak during the public-comment periods, it delays the meetings if everyone is saying the same thing. One person needs to be appointed to speak for the group, Bengel said.
(Freedom of Speech squashed again!)
Bengel said she supported the resolution.
White didn’t. He said when he ran for aldermen he told people sitting in the audience they were sitting in a living room and he wanted them to feel comfortable and be able to express themselves.
“Our job is to listen to the people,” White said. (CHEERS FOR YOU ALDERMAN WHITE!)
Bucher said although he “totally agreed with this free-speech concept,” he also agreed with Bengel and welcomed emails and telephones comments from citizens. (YES, BUT YOU DID NOT DEFEND IT!)
If people could not express their concerns in four minutes, Bucher said they could return and speak at the next meeting. (LIKE, AFTER THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED?)
Alderman Johnnie Kinsey said he supported the four-minute rule. “We are trying to conduct a meeting as well as serve the people,” he said.
TSK, TSK, Aldermen Bucher, Kinsey and Taylor! Shame, shame Alderwoman Bengel!
Don't you believe in the First Amendment?
Bettis said he really didn’t know how to respond. Constitutionally, it was “a really important” issue, he said. “But how do you balance that,” Bettis said. (YOU FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, PERIOD!)
At least one citizen has taken advantage of the public-comment period and had to be escorted from the podium several times, he said, later adding he didn’t know what to do when a person “doesn’t respect the city’s living room.”
Hal James, a member of the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, said the First Amendment of the Constitution not only gives people freedom of speech but also the right to address government.
James said although he did not have a problem with the four-minute rule he was concerned that the resolution also says the Board of Aldermen has the right to adopt “additional, reasonable rules to govern the conduct of the public-comment period.”
“I don’t think that is right,” James said. “And I think citizens concerned with tax burdens should be allowed to talk longer than four minutes.”
Scott Davis, city attorney, said the resolution would only regulate the regular board meetings, not public meetings like budget hearings.
Eddie Fitzgerald can be reached at 252-635-5675 or at efitzgerald@freedomenc.com
© Copyright 2011 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/alderman-101922-resolution-aldermen.html
by Eddie Fitzgerald (Lynn's comments in blue!)
November 9, 2011
In a split decision Tuesday night, New Bern aldermen approved a resolution limiting time for citizens to express their concerns to the board.
Mayor Lee Bettis and aldermen Bernard White and Dana Outlaw voted against the proposed four-minute time limitation that will be imposed during the public-comment period of the first regular board meeting each month. (YEAH and THANKS!)
The resolution passed 4-3. Alderman Victor Taylor made a motion to adopt the resolution; it was seconded by Alderman Dennis Bucher.
Alderman Sabrina Bengel said it was important for her as a citizen and alderman that people have the right to speak on issues, but there needed to be more order during the public meetings.
“You have the right to call any of us and I encourage you to do it,” Bengel said.
When groups speak during the public-comment periods, it delays the meetings if everyone is saying the same thing. One person needs to be appointed to speak for the group, Bengel said.
(Freedom of Speech squashed again!)
Bengel said she supported the resolution.
White didn’t. He said when he ran for aldermen he told people sitting in the audience they were sitting in a living room and he wanted them to feel comfortable and be able to express themselves.
“Our job is to listen to the people,” White said. (CHEERS FOR YOU ALDERMAN WHITE!)
Bucher said although he “totally agreed with this free-speech concept,” he also agreed with Bengel and welcomed emails and telephones comments from citizens. (YES, BUT YOU DID NOT DEFEND IT!)
If people could not express their concerns in four minutes, Bucher said they could return and speak at the next meeting. (LIKE, AFTER THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED?)
Alderman Johnnie Kinsey said he supported the four-minute rule. “We are trying to conduct a meeting as well as serve the people,” he said.
TSK, TSK, Aldermen Bucher, Kinsey and Taylor! Shame, shame Alderwoman Bengel!
Don't you believe in the First Amendment?
Bettis said he really didn’t know how to respond. Constitutionally, it was “a really important” issue, he said. “But how do you balance that,” Bettis said. (YOU FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, PERIOD!)
At least one citizen has taken advantage of the public-comment period and had to be escorted from the podium several times, he said, later adding he didn’t know what to do when a person “doesn’t respect the city’s living room.”
Hal James, a member of the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, said the First Amendment of the Constitution not only gives people freedom of speech but also the right to address government.
James said although he did not have a problem with the four-minute rule he was concerned that the resolution also says the Board of Aldermen has the right to adopt “additional, reasonable rules to govern the conduct of the public-comment period.”
“I don’t think that is right,” James said. “And I think citizens concerned with tax burdens should be allowed to talk longer than four minutes.”
Scott Davis, city attorney, said the resolution would only regulate the regular board meetings, not public meetings like budget hearings.
Eddie Fitzgerald can be reached at 252-635-5675 or at efitzgerald@freedomenc.com
© Copyright 2011 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/alderman-101922-resolution-aldermen.html
Thursday, September 23, 2010
CALL TO ACTION
URGENT: VOTE ON DISCLOSE ACT TODAY, September 23, 2010
Once again, we must fight for our basic rights that the liberals want to take away from us. Today, Harry Reid is going to try and shove the DISCLOSE act through the Senate. This must be stopped.
The DISCLOSE act is the response to the Citizens United case, where the Supreme Court ruled much of the McCain Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional.
The Democrats don't have a problem with corporations spending money on political speech. They have a problem with anyone engaging in political speech that disagrees with them.
The DISCLOSE act puts restrictions on spending for political speech, but amazingly enough only for those who generally disagree with them. Certain groups, Democratic constituencies, like Unions, are exempted from the requirements of the DISCLOSE act.
The DISCLOSE act is another attack on free speech and must be stopped. Call your Senators this morning and tell them to vote against the DISCLOSE act.
Two Senators who seem to be on the fence on this one are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Call their offices and tell them to vote against this bill.
Collins numbers are: 202-225-2523 or 207-945-0416.
Snowe's numbers are: 202-225-5344 or 207-874-0883.
Call today, while we still have a First Amendment to protect!
Once again, we must fight for our basic rights that the liberals want to take away from us. Today, Harry Reid is going to try and shove the DISCLOSE act through the Senate. This must be stopped.
The DISCLOSE act is the response to the Citizens United case, where the Supreme Court ruled much of the McCain Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional.
The Democrats don't have a problem with corporations spending money on political speech. They have a problem with anyone engaging in political speech that disagrees with them.
The DISCLOSE act puts restrictions on spending for political speech, but amazingly enough only for those who generally disagree with them. Certain groups, Democratic constituencies, like Unions, are exempted from the requirements of the DISCLOSE act.
The DISCLOSE act is another attack on free speech and must be stopped. Call your Senators this morning and tell them to vote against the DISCLOSE act.
Two Senators who seem to be on the fence on this one are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Call their offices and tell them to vote against this bill.
Collins numbers are: 202-225-2523 or 207-945-0416.
Snowe's numbers are: 202-225-5344 or 207-874-0883.
Call today, while we still have a First Amendment to protect!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
