An OWS Civics Quiz

Pop Quiz.

TEXT # 1:

[New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg] said the decision to clamp down on media coverage was made to "protect the members of the press. We have to provide protection and we have done exactly that." He said the move was made "to prevent a situation from getting worse". Bloomberg said that "from the beginning, I have said that the city had two principal goals: guaranteeing public health and safety, and guaranteeing the protesters' First Amendment rights. But when those two goals clash, the health and safety of the public and our first responders must be the priority." -- Dominic Rushe, in The Guardian UK

TEXT #2:

"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." -- First Amendment to the Constitution.

QUESTION 1: Does the First Amendment give the mayor the right to "protect the members of the press" from the news? Doesn't this count as "abridging the freedom of the press"? Discuss.

QUESTION 2: Does "make no law" give the government the ability to set aside freedom of speech and the right of people peaceably to assemble whenever it wants to? Or only when those Constitutionally guaranteed rights clash with other goals that the mayor finds more to his liking? Discuss.

 

 

 

Follow Howard A. Rodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivanjohnson

Comments

[dumboldfarmer]

07:56 PM on 11/16/2011

What gives the Mayor the right to incite violence via the police? What gives the Mayor the right to take the personal properties of the people in Zucotti Park without a warrant? Why is the Mayor allowed to violate laws and walk free?

[quillerm]

05:27 PM on 11/16/2011

How many people have been killed, assaulted or raped at these peaceful demonstrations? To many. It's time for Obama's Communist Youth and the thousands of criminals using these demonstrations as cover to leave. We still don't know what these kids want, other than other peoples property. Last I checked, people had a right to protect their property, and those that want to take it by force are stealing.

[Marla Louise]

12:14 AM on 11/17/2011

And those incoherent ramblings have something to do with the original questions, how?

[Kara Kramer]

01:04 PM on 11/16/2011

The press being prevented from filming police activity against demonstrators.
Only in America..And Syria..and Libya...and China...and North Korea...and Iran...
This is what conservatives have in store for the USA, a theocratic police state.

[itolduso]

12:42 PM on 11/16/2011

I'd like to suggest a third question.......What constitutes 'resisting arrest'?...... Are law enforcement officers required to actually attempt to make an arrest before they can start beating, pepperspraying, and physically attacking someone for 'resisting arrest'? Which leads to the question of 'what is excessive force'....are police justified in ramming batons into the soft tissues of non-violent protestors for failure to comply with an order to disperse (class 4 misdemeanor)?

[Marla Louise]

01:38 PM on 11/16/2011

Take your question a bit further. Kayvan Sabeghi, a vet who was arrested in Oakland and had his spleen damaged was charged with "Suspicion of Resisting Arrest" What exactly is this charge?

[itolduso]

03:02 PM on 11/16/2011

That charge and all the other unfair, unAmerican, and unacceptable violations of our sacred rights is what happens when we allow our 'Peace Officers' - sworn to serve and protect the public - to become 'Law Enforcement Officers' - who defend the institutions instead of the individuals.

[RTIII]

11:39 AM on 11/16/2011

1A: Does the First Amendment give the mayor the right to "protect the members of the press" from the news?

NO, it explicitly prohibits him from doing so.

1B: Doesn't this count as "abridging the freedom of the press"?

YES, of course it does.

2A: Does "make no law" give the government the ability to set aside freedom of speech and the right of people peaceably to assemble whenever it wants to?

NO, of course not, again, it explicitly prohibits any such restrictions.

2B: Or only when those Constitutionally guaranteed rights clash with other goals that the mayor finds more to his liking?

Again no, of course not.

WHY ASK THESE QUESTIONS? Write the article that PUSHES an outcry against such tyrany!

[OliverTwist]

09:42 AM on 11/16/2011

The Constitution is no longer the law of the land.

That's one of the issues.

[jeremyg1963]

07:36 AM on 11/16/2011

The revolution is coming.

[John Pierce]

06:43 AM on 11/16/2011

As there are far more vagrants, pimps, and other nefarious characters inhabiting the streets of New York, it's obvious that the OWS message is resonating and all of the offered justifications for the recent actions are ludicrous. As obvious as it is that shutting off the message is the intent it is less obvious that there is recourse other than to keep that message loud and clearly ringing.

[1LTUSMC]

02:30 AM on 11/16/2011

If we don't respect the rule of law--i.e. "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of American. If the financial, political, and religious elites are allowed to pick and choose which Constitution protections are optional--then the rights and protections of us non-elite (99%) are rendered useless.

Look at the similarity between misuse of the Constitution by Bloomberg compared against the Iranian Supreme Leaders:

Bloomberg, "...from the beginning, the city had two principal goals: guaranteeing public health and safety, and guaranteeing the protesters' First Amendment rights. --Dominic Rushe, in The Guardian UK 15NOV2011

"Protections offered by the Islamic Republic's constitution have been rendered meaningless in practice. Not surprisingly, the daily regimen of discrimination makes Zoroastrians feel wholly unwelcome in their Iranian homeland."--Jamsheed K. Choksy CNN Editorial 14NOV2011

As a guest of the Soviet Union decades ago, I received a detailed explanation of the USSR constitution. It sounded like something Thomas Jefferson had written. It WAS a plagiarized version of our US Constitution.

The strength of any constitution is determined by the beauty of its words but by the consistency of its application. With the current widespread misapplication, our protections have become just words and will soon cease to exist if we allow. Let's not!

[rahgolf]

07:50 PM on 11/16/2011

LT: Good essay!

[kemstone]

01:52 AM on 11/16/2011

I'm sure the Tea Party will not stand idly by and let their fellow citizens have their Constitutional rights trampled on. I mean, even if they have their disagreements with the protesters, surely the Constitution is sacrosanct, no? No? No!?!?!?

[James Lopez]

12:35 AM on 11/16/2011

Let's see the government bust up some tea party rallies already - y'know, for safety.

[OCerInTN]

12:13 AM on 11/16/2011

How is "make no law" any different than "shall not be infringed"? When that one can be explained, I can explain Bloomberg.

[jacw20]

11:18 PM on 11/15/2011

"Does "make no law" give the government the ability to set aside freedom of speech and the right of people peaceably to assemble whenever it wants to?" Yes and no.... it can't discriminate against a particular speaker but it can establish speech neutral rules to protect the health and safety of it's citizens and to provide protections for private property. Also, rules can be put into place to ensure different voices have the ability to be heard and one voice doesn't monopolize the commons (think of time limits on debate in Congress).

[Marla Louise]

09:50 AM on 11/16/2011

While apparently the courts agree with you, I don't agree with this logic. 'Speech neutral' assumes the government is outside the conversation, and acting as an arbiter between two or more non-governmental parties. But if the conversation (i.e. the protest) is directed at the government, then the government cannot claim that constraints are 'speech neutral' while projecting it's own speech by entirely different rules.

[itolduso]

02:22 PM on 11/16/2011

If the Mayor is going to attempt to justify his actions by claiming he is protecting the health and safety of the public.... then I would think the public has a right to know what criteria his decisions were based on...for instance....citing 'overcrowding' in the park as a health/safety risk ignores the FACT that many sections of Manhattan are seriously 'overcrowded' on a regular basis...and yet riot police are not called in to disperse the afternoon rush hour crowd, fans assembled outside stadiums, trade shows, and fashion shows, or the New Years Eve events in Time's Square - even though it's a safe wager to say that crime levels are equal to or higher at ALL of them compared to the Zuccotti Park Protests...he claimed incidents of physical confrontations and illegal drug use...yet, again, those incidents are occurring at higher rates in and around most nightclubs in the city- yet he does not use riot police to arrest, beat, or disburse those citizens.

[stevemarvin]

10:05 PM on 11/15/2011

On 10/22 Naomi Wolf had a great post here on this very subject and how peaceful "disruption" of business as usual is well within a citizen's first amendment rights. She further argues that we have a duty to disrupt when unjust actions are taken in our name. See link below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/occupy-wall-street-bloomberg-free-speech-right-to-disruption-_b_1026535.html

[violettefemme]

09:28 PM on 11/15/2011

What's amazing is that never have I heard of "public safety" factoring into the actual application of the 4th amendment, we're always hearing how anything bad is an "isolated incident" and doesn't count, and that the Constitution is inviolable and absolute and thus the 4th amendment is as well.

Yet here we have this shining example of a mayor so very concerned about the safety of the *press* no less, that he is willing to set aside a pesky constitutional amendment to ensure it. And not just any old constitutional amendment, oh no! The 1st! The best one! The one that set the bar! Hoo boy.

A new low for America. A new low in a very scary way.

[OCerInTN]

12:14 AM on 11/16/2011

Tell me, what amendment protects the first?

[Christopher Nagy]

06:09 AM on 11/16/2011

The same one that protects all the other amendments. Thing is, times have to get really, really bad before it gets invoked en mass.

[violettefemme]

06:29 PM on 11/16/2011

If you need guns to protect your rights, you have no rights at all.

There is a difference between obtaining something, and protecting it. While war and guns may be needed to gain freedom, guns are not needed within this country to protect it. Their presence actually creates the opposite of freedom for many here.