Free Speech Against The Law At Supreme Court
A little known 1949 federal law, rarely enforced,
says: “It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages
in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and
grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public
notice a party, organization, or movement.”
By de Andréa
June 16, 2013
Did you even know that since 1949
American citizens could not legally exercise their Constitutional right of free
speech any ware near the court that is supposed to protect FREE SPEECH? I didn’t…
This all came to
light when Harold Hodge stood quietly and peacefully in the Supreme Court plaza
area wearing a sign that proclaimed “The U.S. gov allows police to illegally
murder and brutalize African Americans and Hispanic people.” But police immediately approached
Hodge and told him he was breaking the law.
When Hodge refused to leave, he was arrested, taken to police headquarters, and cited.
It is interesting that the plaza was
originally (when we had a constitution) a place where the public had a right to
gather and converse, and is in all relevant respects, like a public square or
park where citizens have traditionally and historically met to express their
views on matters of public interest.
In addition, political speech was the
driving force behind the First Amendment in the first place, now it’s the driving
force behind the attack on the right.
So why haven’t we heard of this law
since 1949? Because it was rarely
enforced, it has always been a place where reporters gathered in reference to
an issue being ruled on in the court, people carried signs, interested parties
assembled etc. But this is 2013, and this
is the Obama Regime, and Harold Hodge is black, and he is speaking out against
government atrocities, and we simply can’t allow that.
Well…a federal District judge has
blasted the Supreme Court’s plaza law, as unconstitutional. The law forbids people from being in
“assemblages” or carrying signs that are intended to attract attention,
declaring such limits in the shadow of the building where the First Amendment
is supposed to be protected.
The Supreme Court makes law
Within hours…the Supreme Court blasted
back, installing a ‘new’ set of restrictive “regulations”/laws (actually
illegally making, or adding to the existing law) specifying what can and cannot
happen on the high court property including the plaza.
It was Judge Beryl Howell, District
court judge for the District of
Columbia , who wrote in an opinion this week that such
limits – outlined in the federal law and based on the “dignity” of the location
– are unconstitutional and unenforceable.
“The absolute prohibition of expressive activity in the federal statute
is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with
the First Amendment,” the judge wrote. “The court therefore must find the statute
unconstitutional and therefore void as applied to the Supreme Court plaza.”
Constitutional attorney John Whitehead,
president of the Rutherford Institute, said
Howell’s “frank, no-holds-barred ruling affirming the Supreme Court plaza as a
free speech zone throws a lifeline to the First Amendment at a
time when government officials are doing their best to censor, silence and
restrict free speech activities.”
Whitehead, author of “A
Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State,” said
there are “many things that are repugnant to the Constitution right now – mass
surveillance of Americans, roadside strip searches, forcible DNA extractions,
SWAT team raids, civil commitments for criticizing the government, etc. – but
this ruling at least sends a message, all is not lost as long as we still have
some members of the judiciary who understand and abide by both the letter and
the spirit and the rule of law, our U.S. Constitution.”
However, the Supreme Court posted
online a ‘new illegal law’ that now is imposing a regulation that bans
activities on the court’s grounds or building such as picketing, speech-making,
marching, vigils or religious services “that involve the communication or
expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the
conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.”
The notice said the law has been
approved by the marshal and approved by Chief Justice John Roberts. But…my friend, it wasn’t passed by congress
or signed by the president…oh well! I
guess we don’t need the congress any more.
Whitehead said the new maneuver to
restrict constitutional rights is being researched. “We’re going to go after it. We’re going to do what we can to challenge
it,” he said.
Detail and Recap
The original case developed over the
Jan. 28, 2011, appearance on the plaza by Harold Hodge. He stood quietly and peacefully in the plaza
area wearing a sign that proclaimed: “The U.S. gov. allows police to
illegally murder and brutalize African Americans and Hispanic people.”
The Rutherford
report said the plaza is a place where the public is allowed to gather and
converse and is, in all relevant respects, like a public square or park where
citizens have traditionally met to express their views on matters of public
interest.
But police immediately approached Hodge
and told him he was breaking the law. When Hodge refused to leave, he was
arrested, taken to police headquarters and cited.
Later, the charge was dropped because
Hodge made an agreement to stay away from the building for six months. But he
later filed the challenge to the constitutionality of law.
Rutherford Institute attorneys argued
that absolute prohibition on speech and expression on the Supreme Court plaza
is unreasonable and unnecessary to protect any legitimate governmental interest
with respect to the court or its proceedings.
And beyond that, Hodge “has a right to be out there,” he said.
Whitehead said the whole idea of a zone
without free speech violates the constitutional concept of being able to “petition
our leaders.”
The
District court opinion says that the concept of
limiting freedoms through a law advocating for the “dignity” of the
courthouse was “repugnant.” The judge
said the limit at the Supreme Court was based on a similar earlier law that was
used to protect the U.S. Capitol.
However, the Capital law already was declared unconstitutional
“Given that the challenged statute was rooted
directly in the Capitol Grounds statute, which was already challenged and ruled
unconstitutional, and is clearly relevant here, the court takes judicial notice
of this history.”
The opinion noted that attorneys are
allowed to hold news conferences there, and court officials have approved
commercial filming projects on site. The
judge said a decision on whether the location is a public forum, or not’ wasn’t
needed. “Even if the court were to
conclude that the plaza is a nonpublic forum, the absolute ban on speech set
forth in [the federal law] is not reasonable and, thus, the court concludes
that the ‘justifications for restricting … speech’ on the Supreme Court plaza
simply do not ‘satisfy the requisite standard.”
THE BOTTOM LINE:
It appears that American citizens are hanging on by their fingernails to
the last bits and pieces of the U.S. Constitution. I can predict with historical assurance that
if the first two constitutional amendments are lost, the entire constitution
will be lost with it. All of our freedom
and liberty will be nothing but a memory and the documented history of it will
even be gone.
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance
by the people is the price of liberty, and you must pay
the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you,
therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.” -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address,
March 4, 1837
Thanks for listening – de Andréa
Copyright © 2013
by Bottom Line Publishing - Permission to reprint in whole or in part is
gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
1 comment:
I suspect that this is akin to other archaic aspects of court decorum, which are still observed, such as the requirement that hats not be worn and standing up when a judge enters!
Post a Comment