Dada in Federal Court 7/17 .... leads to 4 days in jail

[Revmar]

If it's not on official business.  I assume he's referring to the IRS office not the entire building or parking lot since there are other businesses in there.

he means the whole building...you have no freedom of speech rights anywhere but in a public building for that specific purpose or the right of way contained within the sidewalk.

Oh no Georgist gets to define Dada's rights?

sorry...you have no freedom of speech rights in collectively owned buildings only where there is common right of ways or it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the building is the free exchange of ideas...this is very basic constitutional rights stuff

Okay, at the risk of poking the bear I have to ask- "basic constitutional rights stuff"?  I don't think the first amendment says "...except in Government buildings where you are just plain annoying to those that work there on your dime".  I could be wrong, I've not read the most recent updated version....

[KBCraig]

Dave 2   Russell 0

? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Maybe I'm just tired>

IRS protests, without getting arrested. Russell if 0 for 2. Dave is 1 for 1. Not sure where the "2" comes in, unless gr8_ace is talking about Dave's Nashua PD protest.

Kevin

[Braddogg]

The score is now: Dave 2   Russell 0

If anything, the "score" is 3-0 -- liberty 3, fascists 0!

I'm going to do some recon this Thursday; if anyone in the Boston area wants to help make the score 4-0, PM me 

[FrankChodorov]

If it's not on official business.  I assume he's referring to the IRS office not the entire building or parking lot since there are other businesses in there.

he means the whole building...you have no freedom of speech rights anywhere but in a public building for that specific purpose or the right of way contained within the sidewalk.

Oh no Georgist gets to define Dada's rights?

sorry...you have no freedom of speech rights in collectively owned buildings only where there is common right of ways or it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the building is the free exchange of ideas...this is very basic constitutional rights stuff

Okay, at the risk of poking the bear I have to ask- "basic constitutional rights stuff"?  I don't think the first amendment says "...except in Government buildings where you are just plain annoying to those that work there on your dime".  I could be wrong, I've not read the most recent updated version....

welll let's work backwards...

you don't have a free speech right on private property not owned by you - correct? (unless invited by the owner hwere they give you explicit permission)

[mraaron]

     The only personal freedoms I have are those which I am willing to exercise, usually at a cost, such as being told to leave or getting a pistol pointed in my face by some punk, or worse.  The colonists paid a high cost, like watching their homes get burned out, and watching neighbors being tortured and executed without a jury trial.  In a few years, our cost might be far worse.   

[Roycerson]

welll let's work backwards...

you don't have a free speech right on private property not owned by you - correct? (unless invited by the owner hwere they give you explicit permission)

Are you saying that you can only petition the government for redress of grievances on their property if you have their express permission?  The first ammendment only gives us the right to petition them from our own living room?  On their phone?  What about email?  Is it wrongful to send email to their server w/o their express permission?  Even assuming you are correct about land owned in common I don't see how it works out that the government can decide how and when you redress them for grievances.

The first ammendment is terribly worded and I suspect it's not grammatically correct.  But the best I can tell the relevant parts are intended to mean "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances."  I could be wrong.  The truth is I couldn't diagram that sentence if my life depended on it. 

I don't know if the sign could be considered a petition though.  A petition would be more like "Would you please stop being so evil?" or "I beg you to stop forcing me to provide money to fund things I find morally reprehensible."  But that would be a bit long for a sign.

Besides, I do own that property and so does Dave.  No person has a greater claim upon it than either of us, assuming it's owned in common.

[John]

"I don't know if the sign could be considered a petition  . . ."


I think YES it is.

[FrankChodorov]

Are you saying that you can only petition the government for redress of grievances on their property if you have their express permission?

no, I am saying you can only petition the government on collectively owned property if the expressed specific purpose of the collectively owned property is to receive redresses of greivances or the excercise of your freedom of speech rights (both individual rights held in common).

so you can not go into a post office or IRS office and excercise your individual common rights of freedom of speech/redress of greivances because it will disrupt the intended official business of the collectively owned property whether or not that is your intention.

likewise, I have no individual common right to use the town snow plow to plow my driveway without getting permission via consensus from all the other owners of the jointly owned (collective) property OR by asking permission from our delegated authority (elected representatives) PRIOR to use because that is not the explicitly intended use.

Even assuming you are correct about land owned in common I don't see how it works out that the government can decide how and when you redress them for grievances.

being a radical Lockean - I believe land starts out owned in common and is rightfully privately enclosed via labor for exclusive use only upto Locke's proviso...beyond Locke's proviso (enough and as good left in common for others) simple social justice requires the equal and direct sharing of economic rent (with your neighbor in a community) that naturally attaches to all locations under scarce conditions (even in anarchy) which is not the result of the landowner's labor (hence their self-ownership is preserved).

the government can't decide how and when you can express your individual common rights of redress of greivances - just WHERE it is to occur.

the reason you always have the common right of freedom of speech on the sidewalks is because although technically the sidewalk itself is collectively owned property there is a common right of way contained within that supercedes the collective property SO LONG AS WHEN EXCERCISING YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMMON RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU ARE NOT INFRINGING ON ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL'S COMMON RIGHT OF WAY...or shouting them down in a public forum.

that is why you can not block the sidewalks and have to keep moving

you have the same rights on the collectively owned roads/parking lots but you have to apply for a permit because there is an inherent conflict between cars use of the common right of way and people walking.

I don't know if the sign could be considered a petition though

.

Dave's sign falls under the individual common right of freedom of speech.

Besides, I do own that property and so does Dave.  No person has a greater claim upon it than either of us, assuming it's owned in common.

then I am afraid you don't understand the difference between joint or collective ownership (a group right) and common ownership - an equal access individual right (not unusual in the NH liberty movement because they don't recognize the importance of common rights/property).

in jointly owned property you have to ask permission and get consent from all the other owners (group consensus) or their delegated authority to use other than it's official, explicitly intended purpose...you should be able to understand why this is inherently unequal!

the only restriction on individual common ownership is so long as you are not infringing on the equal access right of any other individual.

[Dreepa]

Dave's sign falls under the individual common right of freedom of speech.

What if two people held the sign?
Would that be a collective right?

[John]

What if one person does this, and he ALSO represents my opinion?

[Spencer]

What if I have multiple personalities and hold the sign?

[David]

To the moderator, a suggestion,

Thankfully dave seems to be ok    but It may be a good idea to change the title of this thread by removeing the ALERT so that forum members are less likely to pass over an important more recent alert.

Thanks!

[FrankChodorov]

Dave's sign falls under the individual common right of freedom of speech.

What if two people held the sign?
Would that be a collective right?

nope - it would be a collective act

[Kat Kanning]

Keene Police and ICE are at my house now wanting Dave.  If they're waiting, they're going to have a long wait    Shit, I'm still shaking from having to talk to those jerks.


Meeting info:

The meeting is Friday at 11 am, Bldg 19 1/2 in Nashua.  Here's info on the location:

http://www.building19.com/NASHUA.htm

[Lex]

I didn't know Dave lived with you guys.