Export thread

In a move which is causing people to look on in confusion, Colorado Representative Doug Lamborn, known primary for saying the debt ceiling debates this past month were like dealing with a "tar baby", has put up a sign outside his office (which is paid for with taxes) declaring it to be private property where protesting isn't allowed.

Don't know about anyone else, but this just feels wrong.

IRS should tax him on his new found income.

Krisken said:

In a move which is causing people to look on in confusion, Colorado Representative Doug Lamborn, known primary for saying the debt ceiling debates this past month were like dealing with a "tar baby", has put up a sign outside his office (which is paid for with taxes) declaring it to be private property where protesting isn't allowed.

Don't know about anyone else, but this just feels wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does feel wrong. A lot of that going around lately... for instance, BART declaring the San Francisco subway to be a "no free speech zone."

Some days I just get the feeling that nobody actually understands the meaning behind anything they say anymore.

Equally disgusting. Thanks for that, Gas. I was unaware of that story till now.

To my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that anything that is funded by taxes (thus the government) must be held open and to the law of the government (thus BART can't have no free speech zone)

BUT if a building is privately owned (no government fund or taxes - I'm just tossing out there since it is basically the same thing) then they can have rules like restaurant have the right to refuse service to anyone. People can't do X on private property etc etc etc.

Chibibar said:

To my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that anything that is funded by taxes (thus the government) must be held open and to the law of the government (thus BART can't have no free speech zone)

BUT if a building is privately owned (no government fund or taxes - I'm just tossing out there since it is basically the same thing) then they can have rules like restaurant have the right to refuse service to anyone. People can't do X on private property etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

You are correct, and BART is a public concern. That's why it's so disturbing.

GasBandit said:

You are correct, and BART is a public concern. That's why it's so disturbing.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, it's San Francisco. I say this as someone who has lived there and loves that city: THIS is hardly the most disturbing thing to come out of that city

GasBandit said:

Yes, it does feel wrong. A lot of that going around lately... for instance, BART declaring the San Francisco subway to be a "no free speech zone."

Click to expand...

They are trying to take away the Public's right to assemble, too...another thing which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. I don't see this going very well.

--Patrick

Espy said:

Oh come on, it's San Francisco. I say this as someone who has lived there and loves that city: THIS is hardly the most disturbing thing to come out of that city

Click to expand...

Usually the sort of people who live in san francisco don't play very well with infringements on what they see to be their social rights (under which speech and assembly certainly fall)

Espy said:

Oh come on, it's San Francisco. I say this as someone who has lived there and loves that city: THIS is hardly the most disturbing thing to come out of that city

Click to expand...

Then you also know that BART extends well outside of SF. Those of us in the East, North, and South Bay aren't talking too kindly to this. We've had more than enough problems with BART over the last few years, and it's amazing to me how completely unaware they are when it comes to treating riders.

Tress said:

Then you also know that BART extends well outside of SF. Those of us in the East, North, and South Bay aren't talking too kindly to this. We've had more than enough problems with BART over the last few years, and it's amazing to me how completely unaware they are when it comes to treating riders.

Click to expand...

People give me grief when I call public school "government school." Apparently, we need to be reminded that "public" transport is also really "government transport." And government apparently isn't in a very free-speechy mood these days.

I'd give you grief for that too. Replacing 'public' with 'government' is pretty misleading, tbh. Our libraries are hardly "government libraries".

As for not being in a 'free speech mood', too fucking bad. We have to fight for the right to free speech as no one will give it away. There will always be someone who doesn't want you to say what is on your mind.

I'm very interested in the outcome of any resulting court cases.

Is cell phone access a right?

Is cell phone access covered under free speech?

The government can't stop a newspaper from printing and distributing its own news, so if you can manage to install your own communications network that works down there, they wouldn't be able to shut that off, but since they own the property the cellular repeaters are installed on, and the phone companies have agreements in place with them to shut down cell phone service, or restrict it for various reasons ever since 9/11, then is it really an issue of free speech?

Individuals might be able to take the cell phone company to court, but chances are their contract has loopholes large enough to drive a government contract mine truck through.

I would be quite surprised if they determined that text messaging and twitter are protected forms of first amendment communications.

Krisken said:

I'd give you grief for that too. Replacing 'public' with 'government' is pretty misleading, tbh. Our libraries are hardly "government libraries".

As for not being in a 'free speech mood', too fucking bad. We have to fight for the right to free speech as no one will give it away. There will always be someone who doesn't want you to say what is on your mind.

Click to expand...

I agree with the second, not so much the first. If the government finds it can get away with excluding government transit from the first amendment, what's to say they won't decide what they can do with the library catalogues? If they find anything TREASONOUS, they could remove them from the library FOR THE BETTER GLORY OF THE NEW REGIME OF GENERAL KRALL. ALL HAIL KRALL! SINCERELY, LEETLE GIRL.

stienman said:

I'm very interested in the outcome of any resulting court cases.

Is cell phone access a right?

Is cell phone access covered under free speech?

Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for the government but when I called ATT to complain about my constant missed calls and lack of connection in the major metropolitan city I live in they said "nowhere in my contract does it state that I will be able to use my phone to receive or make calls". So thats cool...

Is BART actually government-owned-and-run, like the Port Authority of NY/NJ, or is it a public benefit corporation, like the NYC MTA?

The government officials who don't like free speech need to go the fuck to China where they'll be appreciated by their fellow social vampires.

"Now little Timmy, think back. Where on your cell phone did the bad man touch you? Take your time, it's ok."

If only we could harness hypocrisy and turn it into electricity... our energy problems would be solved forever...

SpecialKO said:

Is BART actually government-owned-and-run, like the Port Authority of NY/NJ, or is it a public benefit corporation, like the NYC MTA?

Click to expand...

Wikipedia leads me to believe it is a government entity. Also, for what it's worth, its website is a .gov.