You can't protest within 500 ft of a freeway

[RideTheDirt]

According to the Escondido police.

So a group of people in my city have been protesting the DUI/ DRIVERS LICENSE checkpoints. On 01/01/2010 we we're told we could not hold our signs warning of the checkpoint ahead unless we were 500 ft from the freeway.

http://www.naturalrightscoalition.org/1/post/2011/01/escondido-pd-claims-protests-are-not-allowed-within-500-ft-of-a-freeway-entrance-exit.html

Land of the free:rolleyes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUbAXtyJLE

UPDATE: The ACLU wrote the chief a letter on our behalf, and it just made the paper!
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/article_838aeacb-0b7f-5e9a-9197-9b291181969a.html

Letter
http://www.aclusandiego.org/news_item.php?article_id=001105

[KCIndy]

The police are clearly wrong. The code cited in the link applies to the restriction of commercial activities, not free speech.

The protest group should consult with an attorney and then keep on protesting.

[sevin]

The right of the people peaceably to assemble... as long you do it somewhere no one will notice.

[RideTheDirt]

The police are clearly wrong. The code cited in the link applies to the restriction of commercial activities, not free speech.

The protest group should consult with an attorney and then keep on protesting.

We are, and did.

[RileyE104]

Just hang up signs everywhere, wait around and see if someone takes them down.. If they get taken down, replace them and repeat the process.. :cool:

[Kregisen]

Atleast he wasn't an asshole....but I'm bamboozled as to how he concluded that protesters were selling a service.

[RideTheDirt]

Atleast he wasn't an asshole....but I'm bamboozled as to how he concluded that protesters were selling a service.
That is what I'm thinking :confused::confused:

[KCIndy]

We are, and did.


Good for you and +Rep for freedom!

[RideTheDirt]

I might be the cameraman ;)

[aGameOfThrones]

Atleast he wasn't an asshole....but I'm bamboozled as to how he concluded that protesters were selling a service.

They were selling the 1st Amendment, obviously. :p

[lynnf]

Atleast he wasn't an asshole....but I'm bamboozled as to how he concluded that protesters were selling a service.

cops have been told that they can lie to the public in order to fulfill their mission. what's it to them if they arrest you and you go to court and beat the false charges? guess you can no longer sue for false arrest.

this same kind of abuse happened in San Antonio last year. some people were handing out DVDs and were ticketed for commercial activity. they beat the charge in court, but still had to endure the hassle.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The right of the people peaceably to assemble... as long you do it somewhere no one will notice.

Welcome to your "free speech zone".

Should have asked what service, what the cops badge number was, his supervisors name and if he had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Really? - can you quote the first amendment for me? You do know that trumps all other laws, right?

-t

[Bruce]

So a group of people in my city have been protesting the DUI/ DRIVERS LICENSE checkpoints. On 01/01/2010 we we're told we could not hold our signs warning of the checkpoint ahead unless we were 500 ft from the freeway.

No matter whether the officer was right or wrong (legally speaking), I commend him for remaining courteous throughout the entire ordeal and seemingly even going out of his way correct his mistake with regards to quoting the CVC and providing you guys with his personal information (name and badge number).

I'd be very interested in seeing what came out of your consultation with an attorney regarding the matter.

Ignoring the legal argument for a minute and focusing solely on whether or not one should be able to protest wherever one wants. I'm not entirely sure what to say. While I can understand where some of you guys are coming from, is it really that bad that you had to move? Well in your case, maybe it was because you were "warning of a checkpoint" (could that be construed as a "service"?)


Should have asked what service, what the cops badge number was, his supervisors name and if he had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Really? - can you quote the first amendment for me? You do know that trumps all other laws, right?

First of all, the officer gave them his name and badge number. Second of all, while you're free to have a civil discussion with a police officer, arguing with them about legal issues and whatnot really isn't what you want to do. If you feel your rights have been violated, file a complaint or take it to court.

Also, the First Amendment trumps all other laws? Could you elaborate on what exactly you mean?

"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."

Originally, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by the Congress and only starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government. The Supreme Court previously held, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and that, consequently, the federal courts could not stop the enforcement of state laws that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is not absolute. It has never been interpreted to guarantee all forms of speech without any restraint whatsoever. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression. Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice.

(See the LawBrain article on Time and manner restrictions (http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Time_and_manner_restrictions))

Also, it is only since the 1940s, that the Supreme Court has recognized a class of "commercial speech" that is afforded less protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution than "non-commercial" or political speech. The first commercial speech case, Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), challenged a New York City regulation banning the distribution of advertising handbills on city-owned streets.

(See the Mises Institution article "Must the Government Decide if KFC is Good for You? (http://mises.org/daily/2234)", though I don't necessarily agree with the author's conclusions)

[Brian4Liberty]

Do they enforce this law when panhandlers are standing at the same off-ramp?

[RideTheDirt]

Do they enforce this law when panhandlers are standing at the same off-ramp?
I have never heard of it...

[RideTheDirt]

Update bump