Supreme Court asks Maryland officials to stop people picketing at justices’ houses

[scruffy]

Protesting most certainly is. I have no doubt the East India Tea company consider what was done to them as harassment.

It was theft.

Only one of many forms of redress.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually it raises an important 1st amendment question. The supreme court said that laws stopping anti-abortion protesters from protesting near abortion clinics was a 1st amendment violation.

Now what's good for the goose, is not god for the gander.

That's a business, not a residence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

I didn't. You were. You said there is a federal law that states they cannot protest there.

That was incorrect. Because, as with just about any topic, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[pknopp]

Not when your "protest" involves harassing people where they live.

Says you.

Protesters Rally in Front of Rahm's House, Criticizing City Budget Cuts

As long as it's on public property (street, sidewalk) it's simple protest.

 

[pknopp]

Actually it raises an important 1st amendment question. The supreme court said that laws stopping anti-abortion protesters from protesting near abortion clinics was a 1st amendment violation.

Now what's good for the goose, is not god for the gander.

What they said is that blocking people from entering was a violation of their rights. If the protesters block the judges from coming or going, I'll side with actions.

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't. You were. You said there is a federal law that states they cannot protest there.

That was incorrect. Because, as with just about any topic, you have no idea what you are talking about.

It's not incorrect

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading​

​

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Says you.

Protesters Rally in Front of Rahm's House, Criticizing City Budget Cuts

As long as it's on public property (street, sidewalk) it's simple protest.

Not in Maryland and not when it involves Judges and their decisions.

 

[meaner gene]

Murder is not a right, you dumb fucktard

Abortion isn't murder.

 

[pknopp]

It was theft.

Only one of many forms of redress.

As long as the government can steal, I support the right of the people to do the same.

Why Civil Asset Forfeiture is Legalized Theft - The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

 

[meaner gene]

Harassing people you don't agree with is not a constitutional right.

Within the limits of the 1st amendment, it is.

 

[pknopp]

Not in Maryland and not when it involves Judges and their decisions.

County law does not over ride the Constitution. They can pass whatever they want.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not incorrect

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading​

​

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.​

Thanks for proving me correct and for proving yourself wrong.

That law does not say it is illegal merely to protest there.

Again, thanks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

County law does not over ride the Constitution. They can pass whatever they want.

the Constitution does not support your claim

 

[bripat9643]

Within the limits of the 1st amendment, it is.

Wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks for proving me correct and for proving yourself wrong.

That law does not say it is illegal merely to protest there.

Again, thanks.

What kind of protest doesn't involve picketing or parading?

It also says "or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence."

You're just plain wrong, you fucking douchebag.

 

[occupied]

In that case, you'll get a real insurrection next time

The right is going down the path of minority rule. Going to be a rocky road.

 

[pknopp]

the Constitution does not support your claim

If you say so.

 

[meaner gene]

In EDUCATED circles everyone knows that unenumerated rights belong to the States. Take it up with your State representative.

Read the constitution again

Amendment X
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

 

[meaner gene]

Not when your "protest" involves harassing people where they live.

The USSC already said that the 1st amendment prevents states from banning anti-abortion protests. At abortion clinics, or even the homes of its employees.

Tell it to the judge.

 

[bripat9643]

The USSC already said that the 1st amendment prevents states from banning anti-abortion protests. At abortion clinics, or even the homes of its employees.

Tell it to the judge.

I don't think it has. How can Maryland have a law banning protests at people's homes?

Protests in Neighborhoods​

Court has upheld residential picketing bans​

In Frisby v. Schultz (1988), the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a residential picketing ban enacted by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin. Finding a substantial governmental interest in protecting residential privacy, the Court majority explained: “One important aspect of residential privacy is protection of the unwilling listener. Although in many locations, we expect individuals simply to avoid speech they do not want to hear, the home is different.”​