Politics: Onward from New Hampshire
 

Here starteth the new thread.

Al Franken- Round II?
 

Club's little brother, or maybe the black sheep of Atticus' family is stirring shit up.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109546,00.html


http://www.foxnews.com/images/114518...calif_teen.jpg

this guy would kick Al Frnaken's ass. PS hint to editors of conservative student papers - don't go skinhead- you're playing to the mob.

First Amendment
 

Minor point,* but where was the first reference to "the First Amendment" in this thread?

*Not really.

Memories from 1971
 

Franken redux
 

Josh Marshall was at the event where Franken mixed it up with a LaRoucheite, and adds some more color. It was a concerted effort by the LaRouchies to screw things up, and people who were asked to leave then came back in to cause trouble again. Not sure that this warrants what Al did, but there you go.

The post before this one is an early candidate for POTY. G.B. Trudeau used to be very, very funny.

Establishment, free exercise, freedom of speech/press, assemble, petition
 

Umm, what is your point? This is the text of the 1st Amendment:

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. (emphasis added)

This is what Al was quoted in the story as saying:
You can quibble over whether he was standing up for what he perceived as a first amendment right or not, but I think there is little doubt he was given his choice of words. In most lay-person's minds, freedom of speech is synonymous with 1st Amendment. Al even kicked "right to assemble" language, which further solidifies in my mind that he was thinking of Amendment numero uno.

Establishment, free exercise, freedom of speech/press, assemble, petition
 

I think Atticus was focusing on the whole "Congress shall" language and taking the position that Franken is technically not an arm of congress, nor the US government at all.
That he is a hypocritical dickhead isn't really up for intelligent debate, so I don't think Atticus was challenging that part of your post. I'm only surprised that Al didn't claim the attack was somehow sanctioned by Harvard.

Establishment, free exercise, freedom of speech/press, assemble, petition
 

No, Hank, that was my point in bringing up the "where is the state action" comment. AG's position was simply to quibble with me that Al didn't specifically say 1st Amendment therefore, he could not have possibly been thinking he was somehow standing up for the 1st Amendment.

My main point was only that Al Frankenberry is a typical lay person who thinks that another private citizen (not acting on the government's behalf) speaking loudly over you somehow infringes your 1st Amendment rights. I think that Al sees himself as this protector of constitutional rights. The irony being that he was suppressing another's speech to supposedly protect someone else's speech.*

*Ty - I think that may be your cue to call me a name

Warm and Fuzzy
 

So not only do you and Atticus hang out, but now both of your alter egos hang out too.

Funny dat.

Establishment, free exercise, freedom of speech/press, assemble, petition
 

Regardless of your gender, i wish you well here. i doubt, however, that Atticus will agree with your above charecterization.

Establishment, free exercise, freedom of speech/press, assemble, petition
 

You're a troll, and I generally don't respond to your kind with more than just a pithy one-liner. As my one-liner went over your head, I'll spell it out more clearly: Hank is right; you are wrong. While the First Amendment and freedom of speech are related, in that one is a very narrowly written way of securing the other against a very particular kind of encroachment, they are not the same thing. Thus my analogy to a particular NFL rule that is conceptually different from "fair play" as a general concept.

Franken's actions could be in defense of freedom of speech, in the same sense that I would personally kick the ass of anyone who came into my church to campaign for Howard Dean in the middle of Mass. The right to speak is not the same as the right to hijack another's audience; you have to win an audience some other way.

Establishment, free exercise, freedom of speech/press, assemble, petition
 

Well, maybe AG and I are both misunderstanding each other. Stranger things have happened. All I was saying was that Al Frankenfreak was confused as to what rights were or were not being infringed.

I would have to go back and read the article, and I am not going to do that, to know if the speech was occuring on private or public property, which, of course, brings a whole other dimension into it.*

*between the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case and now this discourse on the 1st Amendment, I have made quite an impressive showing of my Con Law knowledge here

Establishment, free exercise, freedom of speech/press, assemble, petition
 

Conveniently you leave out Al's comment on "right to assemble." Al was clearly thinking 1st Amendment freedom of speach and right to assemble. AG, you are wrong (again).

Establishment, free exercise, freedom of speech/press, assemble, petition
 

Even if he was, he had the presence of mind not to call it thus. You, however, did not. And you're a lawyer.

Establishment, free exercise, freedom of speech/press, assemble, petition
 

I suspect the framers of the First Amendment did not believe that it gave us all the right to prevent someone from speaking by shouting them down. Nor did this get read into the Constitution in the last century. Holmes said the First Amendment does not give you the right to shout "fire" at a crowded Dean rally, and I think he would have not come out differently had the hypothetical involved LaRouche ravings instead.