|
|
| Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 (745215) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by G1RavagesDad on Mon Feb 16 23:47:44 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by BMTLines on Sat Feb 14 21:06:19 2009. Well.....sort of.....but not quite. States and municipalities can enact any law they please, and then it would be up to someone to challenge the law. If the law is challenged, then the court would rule on its constitutionality. Therefore, it's not really accurate to say that a state or local government can only limit free speech in ways which have already been approved by the court. It's actually the reverse. A state or local government can enact a law limiting free speech in any way that has not been specifically declared unconstitutional, and then if the law is challenged it would be up to the court to decide whether or not the law can stand. Anyway....my original point, which I probably could have done a better job of explaining before I went off on the semantic tangent, was that freedom of speech is not absolute. One doesn't have the right, for example, to walk down the street at three in the morning screaming at the top of one's lungs. States and municipalities have the right to enact laws against that. That's an overly obvious example, but the point is that states and municipalities have the right to legislate with regard to what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior within their boundaries, and any such law would be enforceable until such time as it might be struck down as unconstitutional. I don't know the text of the "disorderly conduct" law that the original poster was charged with violating, but I doubt that the law would be found to contradict the first (or fourteenth) amendment. I'm not saying that the officers were right or wrong.....just that the first (or fourteenth) amendment very probably would not be involved in this matter. |
|
|
|