Wisconsin: “There is a time and place for free speech, and we reserve the right to regulate that...

[Scuba]

http://www.bluecheddar.net/?p=24001


So Scott Walker's top Gestapo agent thinks it's OK to regulate free speech "a little bit". Guess he's never read the Constitution.

Chief Erwin has said, “There is a time and place for free speech, and we reserve the right to regulate that a little bit. We just have to keep it civil and people don’t need to be threatened.”

No, your job, Chief Erwin, is not to regulate our free speech, not even “a little bit.” You see, as soon as you do that, it isn’t free anymore. Your job is to protect our right to free speech. And if anyone is doing a piss-poor job of “keeping it civil and making sure people don’t feel threatened,” it’s the Capitol Police, not the singing citizens in the Rotunda.

As of this writing there have been 467 consecutive weekday Solidarity Sing Alongs at the State Capitol. Whenever other groups have wanted to use the Rotunda, the Sing Along has graciously taken itself outside, even in the most inclement weather, rather than restrict or interfere with others’ access. But to hear Erwin and Marquis, you’d think it was the singing citizens who are making things difficult at the Capitol.

...

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is generally understood as a guarantee of the right to free speech for every U.S. citizen. To “abridge” here means to diminish, to curtail, to reduce in extent. There is no caveat that says it’s okay to “regulate that a little bit.” Because of the First Amendment, the right to free speech in this country is unassailable, undiminishable, unabridgable. It is sacrosanct. Without it, we are merely cogs in the great corporate machine that is consuming us all. This is not about a minor inconvenience. This is about something absolutely fundamental to what it means to be a U.S. citizen. It’s worth fighting for, and some brave and great souls have said—and demonstrated—that it’s worth dying for.

[midnight]

1. What an odd understanding of the constitution this group of Walker appointees have....

Love this pic... Thanks for sharing...

[Jim Lane]

2. Actually, that general statement is correct.

It's repeatedly been held that the First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of speech.

For example, a town can make it illegal for people operating sound trucks with loudspeakers to broadcast their views at high volume in a residential district at 3:00 a.m.

If you suggest that this "loophole" could destroy the First Amendment, the answer is the classic one that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes gave in another context: "Not while this Court sits." A restriction that's unreasonable will be overturned.

Of course, what's reasonable is very fact-specific. I'm not acquainted with the details of the Wisconsin case. I'm saying only that the Chief's explanation can't be dismissed out of hand as reflecting ignorance of the Constitution.

[mojowork_n]

3. time, place, manner....

... I think it's mostly been during the day, while the Assembly and Senate are in session, at the Capitol building where the legislators have their offices -- which are open all day for constituents -- I think it's the "manner" that's the issue. The Thugs are opposed to speech that reflects resistance to their attempts to steam roller through unconstitutional edicts and rule-by-указ (ukase).

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

I hear what you're saying, but standards for "reasonable speech" haven't been violated or abused as outrageously as that comparison (loud noise in the middle of the night) would imply.

[Jim Lane]

4. The sheriff can't use time-place-manner to justify a content restriction.

When the courts say "manner" they don't mean that the state is allowed to ban speech that criticizes officeholders but could allow speech in support of those incumbents. In the unlikely event that someone could prove such discrimination, that would be lethal to the state's position. I have to assume, though, that Walker and his cronies are at least smart enough not to give preferential treatment to their supporters when it comes to holding rallies in the Capitol.

I picked the sound truck example because that's an actual Supreme Court case. Besides, picking a clear (often extreme) case is a good way to illustrate a principle. I didn't mean to imply that the Wisconsin case is that clear. Anytime a legal standard uses the word "reasonable" (as in the opening for reasonable restrictions of time, place, or manner), there will be clear cases each way, and then there'll be cases where there are factors on each side and reasonable people (and judges) can disagree.

My general point was that the people here who were deriding the sheriff's statement were wrong. The First Amendment does allow some regulation of the time, place, or manner of speech, which is all that he was asserting in the quoted statement.

[mojowork_n]

5. Would discriminatory behavior toward journalists qualify as one of those "unlikely events?"

...Is it "preferential treatment" when they provide the best possible legislative outcomes for their corporate sponsors/patrons/clients:

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/bill-moyers-exposes-stranglehold-corporate-right-wing

...and then only allow representatives of friendly, or co-opted news organizations access to report what they're doing?

{By co-opted, I mean journalists from big media companies that are making a killing running ads paid for through "Citizens United." I can't find it now, but I just saw an article that talked about the effect of all that ad money on journalistic ethics. Newspapers, especially, can't afford to kill the golden goose, and flatly call out the lies in the ads that are helping to keep their companies in business.}

Anyway, in the name of better facilitating "security measures," a Walker press briefing intended to promote his concept of Wisconsin as a "business friendly" state deliberately restricted press access. Isn't that something you could label a "content restriction?"

http://wcmcoop.com/2012/09/27/targeted-members-of-the-press-denied-access-to-walker-press-conference/

In an effort to block access to independent journalists, the entire media group, which was already set up in a first floor conference room, was asked to move to a more secure room on the sixth floor of the building.

The move caused congestion with about twenty members of the press and all their equipment jammed up in the hall outside the elevator. State officials checked the press credentials for a second time before allowing people onto the elevators. Once on the sixth floor, several independent journalists, including Jenna Pope and Arthur Kohl-Riggs, were denied access to the room by four Capitol Police officers...

...Once in the room, Scott Walker’s Communications Director and former Karl Rove associate Jocelyn Webster ejected a WCCA-credentialed photojournalist for not displaying her press credentials (even though she is well-known photographer in the Capitol), and scanned the room in hopes of targeting more non-preapproved reporters. Members of the public who pay for the state-owned building and to whom the governor is accountable as a public servant, were also blocked from attending the press conference.

[Jim Lane]

6. Not sure, but my guess is that this would not be held a violation.

It's not uncommon for elected officials to attempt to manipulate the media. They release favorable information, suppress unfavorable information (or release it late Friday afternoon before a three-day weekend), and they play favorites among journalists in terms of media access.

Offhand, I don't know of any court decision that has held any of these tactics to be a First Amendment violation. A court would probably say that the journalist remains free to write whatever he or she pleases. The First Amendment prohibits Walker from trying to suppress the speech, but it doesn't impose an affirmative obligation upon him to aid the reporter by providing information (even if the information is being provided to other reporters).

This isn't my area of specialty as a lawyer, so there could well be precedents I'm not aware of. All I can give you is my educated guess that there's no Constitutional claim here. Journalists might look to Wisconsin law to see any open-government provisions would help them.

[mojowork_n]

7. Suppose that's to be expected. For a country that's ranked 47th in "Press Freedom."

Reporters without Borders most recent list:

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

We're not only well, well below Iceland, Canada, Germany,
Namibia and Cyprus -- we're also trailing Slovenia, Slovakia,
Uruguay, Botswana and Ghana.

[midnight]

8. This is tragic to read...