LC 2.48 Fire In A Crowded Theater Amendment (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:30:34 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  LC 2.48 Fire In A Crowded Theater Amendment (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: LC 2.48 Fire In A Crowded Theater Amendment (Passed)  (Read 1308 times)
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 02, 2019, 07:59:15 AM »
« edited: July 14, 2019, 01:08:25 PM by tack50 »

Quote
Fire In A Crowded Theater Amendment

Quote
Section I. This shall amend the Free Speech Protection Act (L 11.23) as follows.

Quote
Free Speech Protection act

Be it enacted:

1.) Any locality in the Lincoln Region which requires the posting of a liability bond prior to granting a parade or special event permit, shall be prohibited from considering the potential risk of unaffiliated protesters or counter protesters, when calculating the required coverage amount.

2.) No state or locality within the Lincoln Region shall create a buffer zone against constitutionally protected speech activities in an outdoor public area, except upon a finding that such a buffer zone is narrowly tailored to protect a compelling state interest and that the buffer zone is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. found to protect public safety and the safety of individuals at risk.

3.) No locality may enforce any noise ordinance which is not based on an easily ascertainable standard.

4.) No State or locality may enforce any special sign or billboard regulations directed at the advertising of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or imposing time limits on signs advertising temporary events, political viewpoints, trespassing prohibitions, or the sale of land.

5.) 4.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit alleging violation of a person's right to publicity more than 5 years after the death of that person.

6.) 5.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit filed by a Home Owner's Association or the landlord of an Apartment Complex alleging breach of contract for the mere outside or window display of: any flag including but not limited to the national flag of Atlasia, any regional or State flag in Atlasia, any historical flag of the United States Atlasia or Confederate States, or the POW flag.

7.) 6.) Any law in any locality in the Lincoln Region which prohibits: all in-person solicitation in public, in-person solicitation in public during a specific time but not other times, in-person solicitation unless a permit is required, or in-person solicitation in traffic medians while allowing other types of speech in the same medians, are hereby repealed.

8.) Any person in the Lincoln Region found sleeping on public property in an area that is freely accessible may be asked to leave the area by a law enforcement officer with proper jurisdiction. No person asked to leave under such circumstances shall be prosecuted for loitering, trespassing, or camping without a permit, provided the person leaves the area within a reasonable amount of time after the request.

9.) 7.) Nothing in subsection 7 6 of this act shall prevent a local government in the Lincoln Region from prohibiting persons from physically obstructing persons in public, from prohibiting true threats or harassment incident to in-person solicitation, or from prohibiting all speech activities in its roadways and traffic medians, provided the public safety requires it.

10.) 8.) All State and Local bans on wearing masks in public are hereby repealed. Nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any Regional, State, or Local government employee from lawfully requiring a person wearing a mask to temporarily remove the mask so as to ascertain identity.

11.) 9.) No public or private employer shall require any employee to join or pay money to any religious body, political party, social club, or other organization or association, other than occupational licensing groups or groups which train or certify persons in certain skills used during employment. in order to be employed.

12.) 10.) This act shall take effect immediately.

Section II. These changes shall take effect immediately upon passage.

Sponsor: Pyro

Debate time for this bill has started and shall last for no less than 72 hours
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2019, 09:56:39 AM »

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To be frank, the original FSPA has several core issues that have more to do with enriching conservative ideals regarding abortion, homelessness and trade unions than protecting Constitutional speech rights. Specifically, the five alterations I have proposed in this amendment will address some of these concerns.

First, as was brought up briefly in the initial debate on this bill, Sec-2's limitation on 'buffer zones' is coded language for an assault on women's access to abortion. Anti-abortion protesters have a well-known history of blocking or obstructing women from entering health facilities and have often sought to deter access through vandalism and intimidation. As these activities threaten the safety of women seeking access to abortion clinics, I have added a provision stating that buffer zones shall be allowed in order to protect public safety and the safety of individuals at risk.

I have stricken-out Sec-4 because I do not believe we need any further restrictions on signage laws beyond the ruling set in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

Sec-6 (or Sec-5 in the amendment) is squarely meant to disallow HOAs and landlords from banning the display of Confederate flags. Considering this is not a historical flag of Atlasia, but rather a hate symbol representing a traitorous slave-owning aristocracy, I believe the decision to allow/disallow such flags should be left to the property manager(s) and I have edited the language as such.

Sec-8 of the original law states that public property shall not permit the existence of homeless persons. This addition is simply rotten to the core. It should not be the policy of Lincoln to aim its sights at those unable to find housing without providing ample temporary residence services in the same breath. Furthermore, legislation on "free speech" has no place discussing homelessness.

Last, Sec-11 of the FSPA (or Sec-9 in the amendment) has been limited to religious groups. As discussed in the Lincoln Assembly prior to passage of the Right to Work Act (L 14.3), the vague language in this section ("or other organization of association") may include trade unions. As such, I would consider the removal of this portion of Sec-11 a follow-up to the Lincoln Council's repeal of RTW.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2019, 11:15:31 PM »

First, as was brought up briefly in the initial debate on this bill, Sec-2's limitation on 'buffer zones' is coded language for an assault on women's access to abortion. Anti-abortion protesters have a well-known history of blocking or obstructing women from entering health facilities and have often sought to deter access through vandalism and intimidation. As these activities threaten the safety of women seeking access to abortion clinics, I have added a provision stating that buffer zones shall be allowed in order to protect public safety and the safety of individuals at risk.

Your change does not meet with the minimum requirements of McCullen v. Coakley (2014). Any sort of buffer zone in a traditional public forum REQUIRES narrow tailoring and a consideration of alternate channels. Merely claiming public safety without tailoring a regulation to only cover the specific threat is unconstitutional.

Quote

I have stricken-out Sec-4 because I do not believe we need any further restrictions on signage laws beyond the ruling set in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

But this law was passed to comply with Reed v. Town of Gilbert. In that case the Supreme Court said laws that discriminate based on speech content required strict scrutiny which is a death sentence. Laws singling out the specific content identified are facially unconstitutional. I literally just had to rewrite my City's sign code because of this. You want to repeal the ban on imposing federally unconstitutional laws.


Quote
Sec-6 (or Sec-5 in the amendment) is squarely meant to disallow HOAs and landlords from banning the display of Confederate flags. Considering this is not a historical flag of Atlasia, but rather a hate symbol representing a traitorous slave-owning aristocracy, I believe the decision to allow/disallow such flags should be left to the property manager(s) and I have edited the language as such.

Actually, in light of Reed Im with you on this since this singles out specific flags by content and I actually think you need to strike out the remaining categories too. Under Reed we can protect all or none, but not just some.

Quote
Sec-8 of the original law states that public property shall not permit the existence of homeless persons. This addition is simply rotten to the core. It should not be the policy of Lincoln to aim its sights at those unable to find housing without providing ample temporary residence services in the same breath. Furthermore, legislation on "free speech" has no place discussing homelessness.

That provision DECRIMINALIZED homelessness. It exempts them from prosecution for all the normal bs crimes they charge them with: loitering, trespassing, camping without a flippin permit. You want to eliminate a safe harbor that prevents the police from charging homeless people with these crimes. That's the OPPOSITE of what you should want.

Quote
Last, Sec-11 of the FSPA (or Sec-9 in the amendment) has been limited to religious groups. As discussed in the Lincoln Assembly prior to passage of the Right to Work Act (L 14.3), the vague language in this section ("or other organization of association") may include trade unions. As such, I would consider the removal of this portion of Sec-11 a follow-up to the Lincoln Council's repeal of RTW.

First of all that is not vague language, you just left off the all important ALL. All is inclusive. All other organizations is very specific.

But really tho

you want to make it legal ... for an employer to require all of its employees ... to join the Nazi Party in order to hold a job. That's absurd from someone claiming to support workers. You want to eliminate the protection against mandatory membership in a political party in order to hold a job ... so the Koch Bros can require all of their employees to pay dues to the Federalist party!? How does it benefit workers to be FORCED to associate with non-work related groups they may not agree with? That's tyranny. Besides if you deviate from the language of this provision outside of the RTW stuff which was amended, yall lose some federal funding.

The reds are coming for your free speech! Priorities ... trampling free speech and making it easier for the cops to harass homeless people. Remember, this bill is named after a quote from an awful, overturned case that upheld the imprisonment of peaceful socialist war protesters.  Stand up for the workers and peasants of Lincoln and reject this attack on their rights!
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2019, 09:33:01 AM »

First, as was brought up briefly in the initial debate on this bill, Sec-2's limitation on 'buffer zones' is coded language for an assault on women's access to abortion. Anti-abortion protesters have a well-known history of blocking or obstructing women from entering health facilities and have often sought to deter access through vandalism and intimidation. As these activities threaten the safety of women seeking access to abortion clinics, I have added a provision stating that buffer zones shall be allowed in order to protect public safety and the safety of individuals at risk.

Your change does not meet with the minimum requirements of McCullen v. Coakley (2014). Any sort of buffer zone in a traditional public forum REQUIRES narrow tailoring and a consideration of alternate channels. Merely claiming public safety without tailoring a regulation to only cover the specific threat is unconstitutional.

Ah, I had a feeling you would be the first to leap to the defense of the FSPA - OK let's get rolling.

From my understanding on the ruling in McCullen v. Coakley, it basically struck down the specific Massachusetts statue whilst leaving other local laws on buffer zones completely intact, such as a 15-foot zone restriction in Pittsburgh. It also appears that the ruling from Hill v. Colorado upheld the buffer zone as Constitutional as it still allows protesters to exercise first amendment speech rights while protecting women from harassment - so I think we're in more of a gray area legally.

Quote
Quote

I have stricken-out Sec-4 because I do not believe we need any further restrictions on signage laws beyond the ruling set in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

But this law was passed to comply with Reed v. Town of Gilbert. In that case the Supreme Court said laws that discriminate based on speech content required strict scrutiny which is a death sentence. Laws singling out the specific content identified are facially unconstitutional. I literally just had to rewrite my City's sign code because of this. You want to repeal the ban on imposing federally unconstitutional laws.

Why do we need to codify a Supreme Court ruling into regional law? Isn't the ruling more than sufficient?

Quote
Quote
Sec-6 (or Sec-5 in the amendment) is squarely meant to disallow HOAs and landlords from banning the display of Confederate flags. Considering this is not a historical flag of Atlasia, but rather a hate symbol representing a traitorous slave-owning aristocracy, I believe the decision to allow/disallow such flags should be left to the property manager(s) and I have edited the language as such.

Actually, in light of Reed Im with you on this since this singles out specific flags by content and I actually think you need to strike out the remaining categories too. Under Reed we can protect all or none, but not just some.

Works for me.

Quote
Quote
Sec-8 of the original law states that public property shall not permit the existence of homeless persons. This addition is simply rotten to the core. It should not be the policy of Lincoln to aim its sights at those unable to find housing without providing ample temporary residence services in the same breath. Furthermore, legislation on "free speech" has no place discussing homelessness.

That provision DECRIMINALIZED homelessness. It exempts them from prosecution for all the normal bs crimes they charge them with: loitering, trespassing, camping without a flippin permit. You want to eliminate a safe harbor that prevents the police from charging homeless people with these crimes. That's the OPPOSITE of what you should want.

I'll edit the language, in that case.

Quote
Quote
Last, Sec-11 of the FSPA (or Sec-9 in the amendment) has been limited to religious groups. As discussed in the Lincoln Assembly prior to passage of the Right to Work Act (L 14.3), the vague language in this section ("or other organization of association") may include trade unions. As such, I would consider the removal of this portion of Sec-11 a follow-up to the Lincoln Council's repeal of RTW.

First of all that is not vague language, you just left off the all important ALL. All is inclusive. All other organizations is very specific.

But really tho

you want to make it legal ... for an employer to require all of its employees ... to join the Nazi Party in order to hold a job. That's absurd from someone claiming to support workers. You want to eliminate the protection against mandatory membership in a political party in order to hold a job ... so the Koch Bros can require all of their employees to pay dues to the Federalist party!? How does it benefit workers to be FORCED to associate with non-work related groups they may not agree with? That's tyranny. Besides if you deviate from the language of this provision outside of the RTW stuff which was amended, yall lose some federal funding.

Your example is obviously a silly exaggeration, but I'll amend the language to address the concern.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2019, 09:42:02 AM »

I support part of this, but not all of it

I propose an amendment

Quote
Fire In A Crowded Theater Amendment

Quote
Section I. This shall amend the Free Speech Protection Act (L 11.23) as follows.

Quote
Free Speech Protection act

Be it enacted:

1.) Any locality in the Lincoln Region which requires the posting of a liability bond prior to granting a parade or special event permit, shall be prohibited from considering the potential risk of unaffiliated protesters or counter protesters, when calculating the required coverage amount.

2.) No state or locality within the Lincoln Region shall create a buffer zone against constitutionally protected speech activities in an outdoor public area, except upon a finding that such a buffer zone is narrowly tailored to protect a compelling state interest and that the buffer zone is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. or found to protect public safety and the safety of individuals at risk.

3.) No locality may enforce any noise ordinance which is not based on an easily ascertainable standard.

4.) No State or locality may enforce any special sign or billboard regulations directed at the advertising of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or imposing time limits on signs advertising temporary events, political viewpoints, trespassing prohibitions, or the sale of land.

5.) 4.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit alleging violation of a person's right to publicity more than 5 years after the death of that person.

6.) 5.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit filed by a Home Owner's Association or the landlord of an Apartment Complex alleging breach of contract for the mere outside or window display of: any flag including but not limited to the national flag of Atlasia, any regional or State flag in Atlasia, any historical flag of the United States, Atlasia or Confederate States, or the POW flag.

7.) 6.) Any law in any locality in the Lincoln Region which prohibits: all in-person solicitation in public, in-person solicitation in public during a specific time but not other times, in-person solicitation unless a permit is required, or in-person solicitation in traffic medians while allowing other types of speech in the same medians, are hereby repealed.

8.) Any person in the Lincoln Region found sleeping on public property in an area that is freely accessible may be asked to leave the area by a law enforcement officer with proper jurisdiction. No person asked to leave under such circumstances shall be prosecuted for loitering, trespassing, or camping without a permit, provided the person leaves the area within a reasonable amount of time after the request.

9.) 7.) Nothing in subsection 7 6 of this act shall prevent a local government in the Lincoln Region from prohibiting persons from physically obstructing persons in public, from prohibiting true threats or harassment incident to in-person solicitation, or from prohibiting all speech activities in its roadways and traffic medians, provided the public safety requires it.

10.) 8.) All State and Local bans on wearing masks in public are hereby repealed. Nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any Regional, State, or Local government employee from lawfully requiring a person wearing a mask to temporarily remove the mask so as to ascertain identity.

11.) 9.) No public or private employer shall require any employee to join or pay money to any religious body, political party, social club, or other organization or association, other than occupational licensing groups or groups which train or certify persons in certain skills used during employment in order to be employed.

12.) 10.) This act shall take effect immediately.

Section II. These changes shall take effect immediately upon passage.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2019, 09:53:10 AM »

Introducing the following amendment on this legislation.

Quote
Fire In A Crowded Theater Amendment

Quote
Section I. This shall amend the Free Speech Protection Act (L 11.23) as follows.

Quote
Free Speech Protection act

Be it enacted:

1.) Any locality in the Lincoln Region which requires the posting of a liability bond prior to granting a parade or special event permit, shall be prohibited from considering the potential risk of unaffiliated protesters or counter protesters, when calculating the required coverage amount.

2.) No state or locality within the Lincoln Region shall create a buffer zone against constitutionally protected speech activities in an outdoor public area, except upon a finding that such a buffer zone is narrowly tailored to protect a compelling state interest and that the buffer zone is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. found to protect public safety and the safety of individuals at risk.

3.) No locality may enforce any noise ordinance which is not based on an easily ascertainable standard.

4.) No State or locality may enforce any special sign or billboard regulations directed at the advertising of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or imposing time limits on signs advertising temporary events, political viewpoints, trespassing prohibitions, or the sale of land.

5.) 4.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit alleging violation of a person's right to publicity more than 5 years after the death of that person.

6.) 5.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit filed by a Home Owner's Association or the landlord of an Apartment Complex alleging breach of contract for the mere outside or window display of: any flag including but not limited to the national flag of Atlasia, any regional or State flag in Atlasia, any historical flag of the United States Atlasia or Confederate States, or the POW flag.

7.) 6.)5.) Any law in any locality in the Lincoln Region which prohibits: all in-person solicitation in public, in-person solicitation in public during a specific time but not other times, in-person solicitation unless a permit is required, or in-person solicitation in traffic medians while allowing other types of speech in the same medians, are hereby repealed.

8.)6.) Any person in the Lincoln Region found sleeping on public property in an area that is freely accessible may be asked to leave the area by a law enforcement officer with proper jurisdiction. No person found sleeping on public property in an area that is freely accessible asked to leave under such circumstances shall be prosecuted for loitering, trespassing, or camping without a permit., provided the person leaves the area within a reasonable amount of time after the request.

9.) 7.) Nothing in subsection 7 6 5 of this act shall prevent a local government in the Lincoln Region from prohibiting persons from physically obstructing persons in public, from prohibiting true threats or harassment incident to in-person solicitation, or from prohibiting all speech activities in its roadways and traffic medians, provided the public safety requires it.

10.) 8.) All State and Local bans on wearing masks in public are hereby repealed. Nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any Regional, State, or Local government employee from lawfully requiring a person wearing a mask to temporarily remove the mask so as to ascertain identity.

11.) 9.) No public or private employer shall require any employee to join or pay money to any religious body, political party, social club, or other organization or association, other than occupational licensing groups or groups which train or certify persons in certain skills used during employment in order to be employed. In compliance with the Right to Work Repeal Act L 1.16, labor unions shall be exempt from this provision.

12.) 10.) This act shall take effect immediately.

Section II. These changes shall take effect immediately upon passage.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2019, 09:57:35 AM »

I object to this amendment


I do not believe that anyone should be required to pay money to an organization, political party, of religion. Also there is nothing wrong with flying the American flag or Atlasian flag
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2019, 09:57:47 AM »

I support part of this, but not all of it

I propose an amendment

Quote
snip

Why do you oppose the noise ordinance section?
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2019, 09:59:46 AM »

I support part of this, but not all of it

I propose an amendment

Quote
snip

Why do you oppose the noise ordinance section?

I believe that is disruptive to play loud music at night, or to otherwise make lots of noise. Most of these noise ordinances deal with night, and most people want to sleep.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2019, 10:53:23 AM »

I object to this amendment


I do not believe that anyone should be required to pay money to an organization, political party, of religion. Also there is nothing wrong with flying the American flag or Atlasian flag

Since I'm the sponsor of the bill and it's my amendment it's added without debate.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2019, 10:54:10 AM »

I support part of this, but not all of it

I propose an amendment

Quote
snip

Why do you oppose the noise ordinance section?

I believe that is disruptive to play loud music at night, or to otherwise make lots of noise. Most of these noise ordinances deal with night, and most people want to sleep.

I believe that would be considered an easily ascertainable standard tmk.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2019, 01:02:30 PM »

I support part of this, but not all of it

I propose an amendment

Quote
snip

Why do you oppose the noise ordinance section?

I believe that is disruptive to play loud music at night, or to otherwise make lots of noise. Most of these noise ordinances deal with night, and most people want to sleep.

I believe that would be considered an easily ascertainable standard tmk.

Yeah, even just saying "can be heard offsite of the property" is an easily ascertainable standard. Its the minimum Constitutional standard in va. This basically blocks local noise ordinances that just ban "excessibely loud" or "disruptive" sounds that are clearly subjective. My city uses the "can be heard offsite the property" standard alongside an enumerated list of specific stuff. So like amplified music that can be heard offsite between certain hours is banned. Other localities here sometimes use a specific decibel measure which is legal as well, but harder to mitigate against since who can honestly say they know relative decibel levels.


After work Ill happily do a breakdown on the buffer zone caselaw. Im sort of viewing this as practice, since irl I will soon have to convince our City Council to repeal our panhandling laws (ours incorporates buffer zones) on free speech grounds and I know they are gonna try  to knock my head off when I tell them. So the more airtight my argument is the less likely I am to get publicly screamed  at. But yeah, the minimum standard for buffer zones is intermediate scrutiny which requires narrow tailoring.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2019, 01:09:25 PM »

I object to this amendment


I do not believe that anyone should be required to pay money to an organization, political party, of religion. Also there is nothing wrong with flying the American flag or Atlasian flag

Since I'm the sponsor of the bill and it's my amendment it's added without debate.

I thought we did away with that
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2019, 03:15:03 PM »

I object to this amendment


I do not believe that anyone should be required to pay money to an organization, political party, of religion. Also there is nothing wrong with flying the American flag or Atlasian flag

Since I'm the sponsor of the bill and it's my amendment it's added without debate.

I thought we did away with that

Nevermind, the call for objection stands. We'll vote on it soon.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2019, 03:18:01 PM »

Councilor SNJC's amendment is unfriendly.

Sec. 3 is fair and I stand by amending Sec. 11 (9).
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2019, 08:12:35 PM »

So to avoid spending 12 hours writing about info unnecessary to this conversation, lets just take as fact that in analyzing the constitutionality of government laws that burden speech, the Supreme Court applies different tests depending on the type of law in question. The hardest test is called strict scrutiny and I think maybe 3 laws have ever survived the test. That test is typically for the more egregious laws that are purposefully targeting viewpoint or content for disfavored treatment or are just total bans on speech. That is not what I will be discussing.

Laws that are content and viewpoint neutral (I.E. not singling out just "annoying" speech; Coates), that are merely regulating the time, place, and manner of speech in traditional public fora are subject to a test called intermediate scrutiny. Traditional public fora include public streets, sidewalks, and medians, usually parks, and other places held out to the public for that purpose. (Pinette). So a content/viewpoint neutral buffer zone on where in a public forum people may speak would be judged based on the intermediate scrutiny test.

Intermediate scrutiny requires a law to satisfy 3 main elements: 1. The law must be to further a significant government interest 2. The law must be narrowly tailored to only burden the problem speech, and 3. There must be adequate alternative channels for the speech being limited. (Ward). Narrow tailoring need not be the least restrictive means on accomplishing the interest, however it must be related to actual not speculative harm, must have a material impact on that harm, and must not be overinclusive or underinclusive in regards to the burdened speech. In other words, the government may not regulate speech in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.

No one disputes you on 1. Public safety is undeniably a significant government interest. 2 and 3 however will be extremely situational. Mobile buffer zones are dead on arrival. (Schenck). Fixed buffer zones in public fora in every situation without regard to actual need are doomed to fail constitutionally. That's not to say all fixed buffer zones are prohibited. They've been upheld against protesters within a fixed distance of schools during school hours (Grayned), protesters within a fixed distance of a polling place during an election (Burson), and protesters in front of private homes (Frisby). However they often get struck down for not being narrowly tailored, as with protesters in front of some homes (Carey), speech within a fixed distance of an airport terminal (Jews for Jesus), protesters within a fixed distance of foreign embassies (Boos), and speech within a fixed distance of an abortion clinic (McCullen). Plus, there is a difference between imposing a speech buffer zone and ban on obstructing the entrances to somewhere (Cameron).

You mention Hill, however that law passed the narrow tailoring requirement with a double buffer zone design, not merely a single fixed buffer zone. That law had an initial fixed buffer zone where speech was allowed, and then a secondary buffer zone less than 10% of the size of the first zone within that first zone where persons entering the second zone could not be approached. And even then, the Court was relying on the argument that the secondary buffer only prohibited unsolicited approaching not all speech activities. In McCullen, it was mentioned that at least in 2015, Massachussetts was the only state with a fixed buffer law against speech around abortion clinics and the Court struck that down. I cant imagine there are any left in Lincoln.

In conclusion, yes a fixed buffer zone in a public forum that restricts speech activities requires intermediate scrutiny. The proposed amendment posits a standard that is insufficient to pass intermediate scrutiny. Therefore the proposed amendment opens Lincoln up to legal liability for little benefit ... especially since yall would lose under stare decisis.

Sources:
Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611 (1968)
Coates v. Cincinnati , 402 U.S. 611 (1971)
Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980)
Board v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987)
Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988)
Ward v. Rock against Racism , 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
Burson v. Freeman , 504 U.S. 191, (1992)
Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette , 515 U.S. 753 (1995)
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network , 519 U.S. 357 (1997)
Hill v. Colorado , 530 U.S. 703 (2000)
McCullen v. Coakley , 134 S.Ct. 2518 (2014)
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2019, 08:31:26 PM »

In conclusion, yes a fixed buffer zone in a public forum that restricts speech activities requires intermediate scrutiny. The proposed amendment posits a standard that is insufficient to pass intermediate scrutiny. Therefore the proposed amendment opens Lincoln up to legal liability for little benefit ... especially since yall would lose under stare decisis.


While I really appreciate your argument (and we should discuss how to make this bill constitutional), I think this paragraph puts a bit too much faith in Atlasia's judicial system.

Atlasian judges do not believe in standing, let alone stare decisis Tongue
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2019, 08:47:35 PM »


While I really appreciate your argument (and we should discuss how to make this bill constitutional), I think this paragraph puts a bit too much faith in Atlasia's judicial system.

Atlasian judges do not believe in standing, let alone stare decisis Tongue

PiT, Blair, and the Chief would likely side with stare decisis, and Ilikevernin resurrected standing this year. Id like to think we could have a somewhat normal, functioning system.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2019, 11:40:44 AM »

Councilors, a vote is now open on the following amendment:

Amendment L 2:59 by SNJC to LC 2.48 Fire In A Crowded Theater Amendment

Quote
Fire In A Crowded Theater Amendment

Quote
Section I. This shall amend the Free Speech Protection Act (L 11.23) as follows.

Quote
Free Speech Protection act

Be it enacted:

1.) Any locality in the Lincoln Region which requires the posting of a liability bond prior to granting a parade or special event permit, shall be prohibited from considering the potential risk of unaffiliated protesters or counter protesters, when calculating the required coverage amount.

2.) No state or locality within the Lincoln Region shall create a buffer zone against constitutionally protected speech activities in an outdoor public area, except upon a finding that such a buffer zone is narrowly tailored to protect a compelling state interest and that the buffer zone is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. or found to protect public safety and the safety of individuals at risk.

3.) No locality may enforce any noise ordinance which is not based on an easily ascertainable standard.

4.) No State or locality may enforce any special sign or billboard regulations directed at the advertising of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or imposing time limits on signs advertising temporary events, political viewpoints, trespassing prohibitions, or the sale of land.

5.) 4.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit alleging violation of a person's right to publicity more than 5 years after the death of that person.

6.) 5.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit filed by a Home Owner's Association or the landlord of an Apartment Complex alleging breach of contract for the mere outside or window display of: any flag including but not limited to the national flag of Atlasia, any regional or State flag in Atlasia, any historical flag of the United States, Atlasia or Confederate States, or the POW flag.

7.) 6.) Any law in any locality in the Lincoln Region which prohibits: all in-person solicitation in public, in-person solicitation in public during a specific time but not other times, in-person solicitation unless a permit is required, or in-person solicitation in traffic medians while allowing other types of speech in the same medians, are hereby repealed.

8.) Any person in the Lincoln Region found sleeping on public property in an area that is freely accessible may be asked to leave the area by a law enforcement officer with proper jurisdiction. No person asked to leave under such circumstances shall be prosecuted for loitering, trespassing, or camping without a permit, provided the person leaves the area within a reasonable amount of time after the request.

9.) 7.) Nothing in subsection 7 6 of this act shall prevent a local government in the Lincoln Region from prohibiting persons from physically obstructing persons in public, from prohibiting true threats or harassment incident to in-person solicitation, or from prohibiting all speech activities in its roadways and traffic medians, provided the public safety requires it.

10.) 8.) All State and Local bans on wearing masks in public are hereby repealed. Nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any Regional, State, or Local government employee from lawfully requiring a person wearing a mask to temporarily remove the mask so as to ascertain identity.

11.) 9.) No public or private employer shall require any employee to join or pay money to any religious body, political party, social club, or other organization or association, other than occupational licensing groups or groups which train or certify persons in certain skills used during employment in order to be employed.

12.) 10.) This act shall take effect immediately.

Section II. These changes shall take effect immediately upon passage.

Sponsor Feedback: Unfriendly

Please vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.
This vote shall last for 24 hours or until all Councilors have voted.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2019, 11:51:07 AM »

NAY
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2019, 12:55:45 PM »

The vote on Amendment L 2:59 by SNJC is now closed

Aye: 0
Nay: 1 (Pyro)
Abstain: 1 (thr33)
Not voting: 4 (SNJC, PSOL, Zaybay, Dipper Josh)

With one Nay vote to zero Ayes, the amendment is defeated.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2019, 05:41:26 PM »

I will opt to retract/table my earlier amendment.

Instead, I will introduce the following.

Quote
Fire In A Crowded Theater Amendment

Quote
Section I. This shall amend the Free Speech Protection Act (L 11.23) as follows.

Quote
Free Speech Protection act

Be it enacted:

1.) Any locality in the Lincoln Region which requires the posting of a liability bond prior to granting a parade or special event permit, shall be prohibited from considering the potential risk of unaffiliated protesters or counter protesters, when calculating the required coverage amount.

2.) No state or locality within the Lincoln Region shall create a buffer zone against constitutionally protected speech activities in an outdoor public area, except upon a finding that such a buffer zone is narrowly tailored to protect a compelling significant state interest and that the buffer zone is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. affords adequate alternative channels for protected speech activities. found to protect public safety and the safety of individuals at risk.

except upon a finding that such a buffer zone is narrowly tailored to protect a compelling significant state interest and that the buffer zone is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest affords adequate alternative channels for protected speech activities..

3.) No locality may enforce any noise ordinance which is not based on an easily ascertainable standard.

4.) No State or locality may enforce any special sign or billboard regulations directed at the advertising of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or imposing time limits on signs advertising temporary events, political viewpoints, trespassing prohibitions, or the sale of land.

5.) 4.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit alleging violation of a person's right to publicity more than 5 years after the death of that person.

6.) 5.) No Court in the Lincoln Region shall entertain a lawsuit filed by a Home Owner's Association or the landlord of an Apartment Complex alleging breach of contract for the mere outside or window display of: any flag including but not limited to the national flag of Atlasia, any regional or State flag in Atlasia, any historical flag of the United States Atlasia or Confederate States, or the POW flag.

7.) 6.)5.) Any law in any locality in the Lincoln Region which prohibits: all in-person solicitation in public, in-person solicitation in public during a specific time but not other times, in-person solicitation unless a permit is required, or in-person solicitation in traffic medians while allowing other types of speech in the same medians, are hereby repealed.

8.)6.) Any person in the Lincoln Region found sleeping on public property in an area that is freely accessible may be asked to leave the area by a law enforcement officer with proper jurisdiction. No person found sleeping on public property in an area that is freely accessible asked to leave under such circumstances shall be prosecuted for loitering, trespassing, or camping without a permit., provided the person leaves the area within a reasonable amount of time after the request.

9.) 7.) Nothing in subsection 7 6 5 of this act shall prevent a local government in the Lincoln Region from prohibiting persons from physically obstructing persons in public, from prohibiting true threats or harassment incident to in-person solicitation, or from prohibiting all speech activities in its roadways and traffic medians, provided the public safety requires it.

10.) 8.) All State and Local bans on wearing masks in public are hereby repealed. Nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any Regional, State, or Local government employee from lawfully requiring a person wearing a mask to temporarily remove the mask so as to ascertain identity.

11.) 9.) No public or private employer shall require any employee to join or pay money to any religious body, political party, social club, or other organization or association, other than occupational licensing groups or groups which train or certify persons in certain skills used during employment in order to be employed. In compliance with the Right to Work Repeal Act L 1.16, labor unions shall be exempt from this provision.

12.) 10.) This act shall take effect immediately.

Section II. These changes shall take effect immediately upon passage.

Sponsor feedback: Origin
Status: 24 hours for Objection, after which a Vote shall be opened.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2019, 10:16:06 PM »

With no objection the above amendment is adopted into the bill!
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2019, 10:16:54 PM »

I now motion for a final vote on this legislation.

24 Hours for Objection.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2019, 08:40:03 AM »

Lincoln Council is now in Final Business Period

The Second Council of Lincoln will dissolve at Midnight EST July 16th
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.091 seconds with 12 queries.