Harassment of public officials rears its ugly head

If we have a point of agreement, its that there are plenty of things that people do and have been doing that are gross and weird, but not illegal. I'm not sure what to do about it, I suppose one thing people can do is get annoyed about people who complain about it or try to point out their supposed hypocrisy when they do it, its certainly their right, but it seems like a waste of time to me, which is why its hard to arouse any sort of anger about it. The most concerning thing is that if there was something this guy was doing that was illegal, the cops were notified multiple times and did nothing.

 

I wish it was. I'd be very happy in that scenario. My hope is always for the government to eliminate the need for my job.

Says the guy who started a "gotcha" thread that resulted in him "gotcha'ing" himself.

 

Who claimed "all speech in any manner or time is protected"? talk about a straw man.

Restrictions are analyzed according to the circumstances. The government has pretty much unlimited discretion to shut off public access to its facilities for safety reasons. That's why SCOTUS can fence off their entire courthouse. When they do that, it denies the public the right to be there for any reason, speech or not, meaning 1A isn't implicated.

On the other hand, if the government were to make a law saying you can't engage in any political speech outside a restaurant a SCOTUS judge is eating at, that would require the government satisfy heightened scrutiny. The public can still walk on the sidewalk--they're still allowed to be there--but now the government is saying they have to shut their mouth while present. To justify that, the government would need to show that the restrictions are applied in a content-neutral way; that they further an important interest; and that and do so in a means substantially related to the interest.

They've not done any of that with respect to Kavs, and probably can't, which is the authorities will allow those kinds of protests to continue, while maybe, at AOC's prompting, Congress does something to separate members from hecklers.

 

I don't much care if you obey. That's your prerogative. But explaining time, place, and manner restrictions to PerSe and me as if we are completely unaware of the concept betrays some extreme arrogance on your behalf. Would you try to explain to an orthopedic surgeon what a torn ACL is? I would hope not.

On the stalking issue, I recommend reviewing this case:
Thunder Studios, Inc. v. Kazal, No. 19-55413 (9th Cir. 2021)

A guy tried to sue former business partners under California's stalking law, which excepts constitutionally protected activity. In relevant part, he accused the former business partners of paying people to show up and protest at his home and business and have a van covered in signs denouncing his business practices drive around town. The Ninth Circuit held that activity was protected by the First Amendment and therefore outside the scope of the stalking statute. Specifically, the court said:
The district court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Tony and Adam Kazals’ speech and speech-related conduct were a “true threat” and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. On independent review of the constitutional facts, we conclude that their conduct did not constitute a true threat. We therefore conclude that the Kazals’ conduct was protected under the First Amendment and was “[c]onstitutionally protected activity” excluded from coverage under California’s stalking statute. Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.7(b)(1).

Setting aside its content for a moment, speech and speech-related conduct like that of the Kazals are ordinarily protected. The Kazals hired protestors, organized leafletting, hired a van to drive around Los Angeles with a message on its side, and published emails online to “openly and vigorously [] mak[e] the public aware” of their views of David’s business practices. Org. for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971).

The protections of the First Amendment are “nowhere stronger than in streets and parks,” which are traditional public fora. Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1035–36 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). While a few isolated parts of the protest were non-speech conduct—such as when a protestor banged on the car of one of David’s employees—this does not change the overall analysis. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 902, 933 (1982) (noting that “violent conduct is beyond the pale of constitutional protection” but the “ephemeral consequences of relatively few violent acts” do not render a protest unprotected).

 

He does. But they are very situational.

 

Look, some day you might need his advice on when to pull the french fries out of the hot oil.

 

coming from you… that means… almost nothing. But thanks for your brilliant contributions lol.

 

Lighten up bro.

 

it’s a quote from a movie. You lighten up lol

 

What is the cite to State v. Maier? Because the snippet you posted isn't useful without context. And you can recommend that statute all you'd like. It cannot criminalize protected speech. (Plus, lol at any claim that protesters inconveniencing Kavanaugh caused "substantial emotional distress.")

 

Yup, started in earnest with Maxine Waters openly calling for the harassment of any and all Trump Admin staff in public places. Was a batshit crazy thing to do then and the Left has only amped up the rhetoric.

 

1. You're offering a case from Wisconsin's intermediate appellate court.
2. Your case supports my point.

You might ask how your case supports my point. I posted a case where the court determined that because there was no true threat, the stalking statute did not cover the protected speech at issue. You posted a case that determined because there was a true threat, the stalking statute did not punish protected speech. Direct quote: "[W]e will assume, without deciding, that the stalking statute cannot be constitutionally applied to Maier unless his letters contained a true threat."

 

That wasn't your point. Don't misrepresent what you argued in the Kavanaugh thread. I told you that using the stalking laws against the protesters would be unconstitutional AS APPLIED. You disagreed.
Kavanaugh had a bad steak dinner at Morton’s.

 

No, this one where you tried to justify arresting protesters on stalking charges:

You can't use the stalking law to arrest the people protesting on the sidewalk outside Morton's. I was very clear on that. And you certainly argued with me for quite awhile in that thread. Are you now saying you agree?

P.S. Stalking laws aren't content neutral, so the time, place, or manner test isn't a good argument in favor of their constitutionality. They're constitutional when they regulate conduct and not expressive activity or when they regulate speech that falls outside of the First Amendment's protection (e.g., true threats).