81 protesters arrested at Supreme Court

[struggle4progress]

Source: Associated Press

Fri Jan 11, 3:56 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Eighty people were arrested at the Supreme Court Friday in a protest calling for the shutdown of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Demonstrators wearing orange jump suits intended to simulate prison garb were arrested inside and outside the building in the early afternoon. "Shut it down," protesters chanted as others kneeled on the plaza in front of the court.

They were charged with violating an ordinance that prohibits demonstrations of any kind on court grounds. Those arrested inside the building also were charged under a provision that makes it a crime to give "a harangue or oration" in the Supreme Court building.

The maximum penalty is 60 days in jail, a fine or both.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_go_su_co/us_guantanamo_protest

[sakabatou]

1. Good for them

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[flashl]

2. Good. n/t

[madeline_con]

3. Dissent is healthy! Bring down the neocones!

:bounce:

[HowHasItComeToThis]

4. CHIMP SEARCH FOR GRANDURE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=No96AB9Nnc8&feature=related

[RuleOfNah]

5. A crime to give "a harangue or oration" in the Supreme Court building?

What about false statements? Is it legal for counsel to make false statements before the Supreme Court?

[fascisthunter]

6. Wow... 81? Sixty Days in Jail????

[99th_Monkey]

7. 80 more patriotic Heros go to jail. I applaud their cause and their courage. nt

[Purveyor]

8. Funny (or not) that I haven't seen this covered on any of the supposed "news networks". Of course

I've heard all about OJ's latest arrest repeatedly on every half hour news update.

[RuleOfNah]

12. A late Friday news dump?

It looks like DU scooped the mainstream media by an entire news cycle, more if you count the weekend. Does DU always scoop the mainstream media? By that much? More?

[midnight]

9. Very brave Americans. Now that is using the full extent of

their patriotic duty to the fullest.

[rockybelt]

10. Heil Bush!

Get this motherfucker out of office before he completely destroys the United States. He has a good start on it now.

Congress, PLEASE STOP THIS SON OF A BITCH!

[lisainmilo]

11. Good for Them!

:)
They rock!

[pleah]

13. Good for them! True patriots.

[Heywood J]

14. So it's illegal to

give a "harangue or oration"? Isn't that what attorneys do for a living - orating? It's also illegal to protest in front of a court?

o·ra·tion
–noun
1. a formal public speech, esp. one delivered on a special occasion, as on an anniversary, at a funeral, or at academic exercises.
2. a public speech characterized by a studied or elevated style, diction, or delivery.

Those seem like two laws that deliberately encroach upon Constitutional rights, to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and right to petition for redress. Of course, it's the court that would have to review those laws, and they're to the court's benefit...

The Constitution doesn't say that it's fine to protest, as long as it's not in front of the courthouse. It doesn't say you have the right to speak, as long as you don't say anything that might be a speech. That law is wrong.

[Orsino]

15. I don't have much problem with a non-free-speech zone...

...around a building supposedly reserved for calm deliberation, and I suspect that these protesters wanted to be arrested, bless their stout hearts. As long as we're free to air our views peacefully in full view of the highest court in the land, I think the First Amendment is being appropriately honored.

[Heywood J]

17. Assuming, for one moment, that you could

legally erect a "non-free speech zone" around the court, what would be there to stop the use of such a power in other places. Or everywhere, for that matter. Don't like that pesky protest of your policies? Close down the demonstration by designating the protestors to be in a no-free-speech zone. Oh, wait - we've seen that before...

Who would choose where these places occur, for how long, and under what circumstances? Which agency would be in charge of depriving you of your rights, should you actually try to exercise them? Given the rampant and historical corruption in Washington, do you honestly trust any politician to set those boundaries and conditions in an honest manner? Any bureaucrat? Any police officer? How would you explain this incongruity when holding America up as an example to others or defending the country? If you are able to poke non-safety-related holes in the First Amendment, which other amendments are similarly expendable, and why?

If your second sentence is regarding appearing before the court as a litigant, there is no right to that. The court picks and chooses which cases to hear, by design. In that case, by your own definition, the First Amendment is not being honored.

[Orsino]

19. Non-free-speech zones are here to stay.

Law recognizes all sorts of exceptions to the First Amendment, and no, there isn't anything to stop the use of such power in all sorts of places. Security barriers which separate one group of protesters from another, or which simply keep the entrances to a building accessible to all--these are restrictions that make sense without silencing dissent.

I am not free, however much I might desire it, to dance in my underwear before the Supreme Court, but I don't feel unnecessarily bound.

[humbled_opinion]

16. Make sure we keep tabs on this...

won't want any locked up as enemies of the state and shipped off to (Whoknowswhere)....:eyes:

[mac2]

18. Wait a dang minute....isn't the Supreme Court

the final "decider's on the Constitution"? In our democracy you have a right to protest the actions of your government. A ordinance that prohibits demonstrations of any kind on court grounds? Whose "ordinance" is that? The city or the feds?

The protesters have been in front of that court building many times protesting everything from the death penalty to eminent domain.

Is this a new law by the Fascists?