First Amendment Rights
I got to thinking after writing the post about the lawyer and the two guys arrested on disorderly conduct charges. Keep reading, you'll come to it right after this post. Anyway, I was thinking about how the First Amendment works. I hate hearing someone say their First Amendment Rights were violated. They usually don't know what they are talking about. Here is what the First Amendment says:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's it. The full test of the First Amdendment. The two men, Harvey Kash and Carl Lanzisera, were peaceably assembled, as apparently were the rest of the people in line. They made statement to each other, albeit within hearing of others, including the unnamed lawyer. And they will have the right to petition to have the charges dismissed when they appear in court. Apparently, this time someone who claims violation of their First Amendment rights is correct.
Now, by telling their lawyer jokes, whether they realized it or not, and I am sure they did, they were baiting others in the crowd. They wanted someone to react to what they were saying. And they got a reaction, perhaps more than they anticipated. This actually plays into their hands. They received publicity for their group and cause (read the next post) when they were arrested. They will receive more publicity when they appear in court. And they will be cited in law cases for years to come no matter how their case plays out.
I don't believe in confrontational tactics as a general thing. Confrontational tactics could lead to my person being violated in the form of a punch in the nose or worse, my ego. I don't like pain, either physical or to my ego. I personally believe that working within the system to make changes is the best way, but it is not the only way. There are times when confrontation is needed and necessary, and sometimes the only answer.
Making jokes about lawyers can have an unwanted side effect. Mr Kash stated he is due in court to answer a drunken driving charge from 2003. Unless he attempts to defend himself in court he will need a lawyer. And you know what they say about defending yourself in court.
Something about having a fool for a client.
I got to thinking after writing the post about the lawyer and the two guys arrested on disorderly conduct charges. Keep reading, you'll come to it right after this post. Anyway, I was thinking about how the First Amendment works. I hate hearing someone say their First Amendment Rights were violated. They usually don't know what they are talking about. Here is what the First Amendment says:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's it. The full test of the First Amdendment. The two men, Harvey Kash and Carl Lanzisera, were peaceably assembled, as apparently were the rest of the people in line. They made statement to each other, albeit within hearing of others, including the unnamed lawyer. And they will have the right to petition to have the charges dismissed when they appear in court. Apparently, this time someone who claims violation of their First Amendment rights is correct.
Now, by telling their lawyer jokes, whether they realized it or not, and I am sure they did, they were baiting others in the crowd. They wanted someone to react to what they were saying. And they got a reaction, perhaps more than they anticipated. This actually plays into their hands. They received publicity for their group and cause (read the next post) when they were arrested. They will receive more publicity when they appear in court. And they will be cited in law cases for years to come no matter how their case plays out.
I don't believe in confrontational tactics as a general thing. Confrontational tactics could lead to my person being violated in the form of a punch in the nose or worse, my ego. I don't like pain, either physical or to my ego. I personally believe that working within the system to make changes is the best way, but it is not the only way. There are times when confrontation is needed and necessary, and sometimes the only answer.
Making jokes about lawyers can have an unwanted side effect. Mr Kash stated he is due in court to answer a drunken driving charge from 2003. Unless he attempts to defend himself in court he will need a lawyer. And you know what they say about defending yourself in court.
Something about having a fool for a client.
No comments:
Post a Comment