Archive | First Amendment RSS feed for this section

Anti-Protest Law Passes Nearly Unanimously And Is Signed By The President

2 Apr
Lee Camp

Posted: 03/14/2012 10:49 am

So I have some great news folks! The Republicans and the Democrats in Congress and the White House FINALLY came together and agreed on something. This is HUGE. These guys disagree on EVERYTHING! Getting them to see eye-to-eye is like getting the Jews and the Palestinians to do a trust fall together. Or getting Eskimos and polar bears to play Jenga.
I’m referring to the bill H.R. 347 that was signed by President Obama the other day, passed unanimously in the Senate, and 388-3 in the House. That’s nearly EVERY SINGLE lawmaker. The last time they agreed that closely on something, it was a bill raising monthly Congressional pay to include a box of Ding Dongs, two erotic cakes featuring Bonanza star Pernell Roberts, and a gentle yet inquisitive prostate exam every Tuesday.
What did this magical universally-loved bill say? Well some are calling it the anti-Occupy law and it allows the government to bring charges against Americans involved in many kinds of political protest at any location the secret service, quote, “is or will be temporarily visiting.” So basically if the government wants to shut down a protest, they just send a secret service officer down there to scratch his balls, and then they can start putting people in jail for a year or more.
This is all lovely except for that bitchy bothersome document, the Constitution. I believe somewhere in the back it says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Aw shit! That musta sucked when Congress found that out! To get that close to passing it and then shot down? It musta been like getting hired to rub baby oil on the contestants of Miss Universe before the bathing suit portion of the competition and then losing your hands in a freak exploding cell phone accident! So when Congress heard about that first amendment they musta been like, “God damnit! That really f**ks up all our plans. That f**king line in the Constitution says not to do EXACTLY what we just did.” That’s what they must’ve said, right? … They didn’t just pass it anyway … Right?
But the bill doesn’t stop there. I mean, when you have the entirety of Congress with the exception of Ron Paul agreeing on something, why not swing for the fences? The bill also says it could be a federal crime to protest near an event of, quote, “national significance.” Well, that’s not vague at all. So you could be convicted of a federal crime and locked away for a year or more for the following things:
1) Marching outside the Democratic or Republican National Conventions
2) Yelling “C**k-face corporate whore” outside a barber shop where Mitt Romney is getting his ear hair trimmed.
3) Marching in front of the entrance of the New York Stock Exchange
4) Sprinkling magic homosexual glitter on Rick Santorum, or even anyone near Rick Santorum, or even just making fun of his stupid sweater vest!
5) Going to the gates of the White House and demanding the President read the Constitution. …You know, if he gets a chance.
Well, Congress gets to stomp on the Bill of Rights, I want to do it too. I want to bring back cruel and unusual punishment, and then we could demand that every man or woman who voted for the Anti-Protest Law or signed it from the Oval Office be tied up in the town square naked for a week while everyone gets to throw fire ants and bumble bees at their naughty parts. Deal??
Follow Lee Camp on Twitter:

District files motion to quash free speech suit

23 Aug

District Files Motion to Dismiss ACLU Suit Over Georgetown Incident

A suit filed in June alleges that police officers violated a photographer’s First Amendment rights


Jerome Vorus of Alexandria is suing the District of Columbia and several MPD Officers for violating his rights under the Constitution of the United States and the law of the District of Columbia. The District, after requesting several extensions, responded with a motion to dismiss filed Aug. 22 in which it called the officers’ actions a “limited investigatory stop” based on reasonable assumptions.
According to court documents, on July 3, 2010 Vorus was standing on a public sidewalk in Georgetown taking photos of a traffic stop. When officers asked him for indentification, Vorus asked if he was being detained, he was eventually told he was free to go.
Vorus continued making an audio recording while he was being detained and was told by four different MPD officers that it was illegal to take photos or record officers without their consent. It is not illegal to do so.
The plaintiff is seeking damages for police misconduct and alleges that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that he was subject to false arrest and false imprisonment under District law.
In the motion filed Monday, the District  argued the Vorus has failed to plead a violation of any right protected by the First Amendment.
“Officer Wishnick is entitled to qualified immunity for the limited investigatory stop she conducted, under the reasonable (even if mistaken) belief that Plaintiff could be engaged in unlawful activity. Thus, the Court should find that Officer Wishnick is immune from Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against her.”
The District also argues that the plaintiff ‘s photographs and video did not constitute expression. “Plaintiff has only alleged that he informed the officers that ‘he wanted to have some pictures of a traffic stop for his photo collection.’ He never indicated to the officers an intent to disseminate or publish the photographs in any way.”
The defendants write that they have not identified any case law that “clearly establishes a constitutional protection for the narrow right that Plaintiff claims here: the right to capture images and video of public servants in public places for personal use.”
The District similarly denies any Fourth Amendment violations and requests that the court not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.
The case is still pending.