if the 1st Amendment guarantees our right to free speech and

>>139153835
Because founding fathers were dumb(or clever) enough to leave some loopholes like it doesn't specify that you have that right at any time and at any place.

There are laws for 'assembly' which Im pretty sure a rally would fall under. Individual free speech is a different story though.

>>139153835
It doesn't guarantee our right. It prevents the federal government from passing laws that violate it.

Where the fuck did you get your education?

>>139153951

that's what "free" implies

otherwise it would have been conditional, and the conditions specified

>>139153951
>what is the 9th amendment

>>139154465

semantics, moron

>>139156025
Not at all. Negative vs. positive law is a key feature of the constitution and why it was accepted as an alternative to the articles of confederation.

Even niggerbama knew this.

>or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

>>139156102
>>139156222

>the freedom of speech
>the right of the people peaceably to assemble

it's a positive right

>>139156330
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Don't make me greentext the rest of it, nigger.

>>139156432

it's not just congress; the right to free speech has been upheld by the courts locally too

and the writing presumes the positive right in the first place

>>139157386
What the courts uphold, what the people recognize, and what the first amendment actually specifies are all different things. Does your tard wrangler know you're on the loose?

>>139157593
>What the courts uphold, what the people recognize, and what the first amendment actually specifies are all different things.

obviously, but that's not the fault of the 1st Amendment. the 1st Amendment makes it clear there is a right to free speech and assembly

>>139159001
I agree, but that's the first time you've admitted that it states that the right exists, not that it's being guaranteed.

>>139159792

if the right exists that implies a positive force, upon which the government cannot infringe

it doesn't "guarantee" it within a private setting, but that's not what the OP is talking about

>>139160794
The government can infringe. That's why the amendment exists: to establish that it's against the law for the government to do so. It doesn't mean there's some positive force out there compelling people to speak freely.

>>139161191
>The government can infringe. That's why the amendment exists: to establish that it's against the law for the government to do so.

that's what I mean by the government cannot infringe. ie. cannot infringe legally

>>139161191
>>139161304

obviously the government can infringe physically, since they're doing it, as stated in the OP

the positive force is the right recognized by 1st Amendment

>>139161397
You are being woefully inconsistent and arguing like the typical kind of mush head who thinks that the amendments are positive rights, just making things up as you go and taking the one time I stated agreement with you as the next opportunity to claim that it is a positive right.

I do not want people like you to endanger something as important as freedom of expression.

>>139153835
Don't worry my fat burger man.
Real America will live on in the Swedish countryside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfK4s5r-68c

>>139153835
Don't call it 'Unite the Right' and invite every FBI spook you can find.
Call it Free Speech rally next time.

>>139162307

I'm being consistent. you're pretending I'm arguing things I'm not, misinterpreting/misrepresenting

and I corrected you.

>I do not want people like you to endanger something as important as freedom of expression.

I'm arguing for freedom of expression, dumbass

>>139163164
Then instead of claiming that the first amendment is a positive right, be consistent and stick to your question about why a local government can require a permit. Now we can get in to state law.

Where does the local government derive the power to make laws in the first place? Did they decide out of nowhere that they get to be cock of the walk? No, the state government granted it to them.

>>139163521
>be consistent and stick to your question about why a local government can require a permit.

it was never a question. I'm saying they cannot legally do it. it is unconstitutional

>>139163627
My local government has an ordinance that makes it illegal to discharge a firearm except as recognized by state law to be explicitly legally justified. Is that unconstitutional?

No. Wrong jurisdiction. The local ordinance correctly conforms to state law.

File: 1503188202044.jpg (222KB, 1313x985px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1313x985px

>>139163014
That didn't work last time.

>>139163997
it did work, most normies got to see the leftists behave like animals and punched their own leftist because he had a shaved head.
It works alright, you are just too retarded to see the subtility.

>>139163997
It worked just as planned. This entire escalation of opposing sides being organized into conflict was the plan all along. /pol/ has been warning you about this for years, if you've been paying attention.

Arguing about how and why it is or isn't technically legal isn't even important. All it does is incite additional dupes who don't understand their own arguments to go play into the hands of the communists who are playing a very simple agitprop game.

>>139163907

the US constitution subsumes the states and localities

>>139164302
It is the supreme law of the land, but you're barking up the wrong tree, particularly if your aim is to rally people around the ideals that the constitution embodies.

>>139164410

the entire country is divided into states and localities. if those laws trumped the constitution, the constitution wouldn't have any power at all

your argument is bullshit

the constitution applies on the state and local level too. the states and localities may make laws, as long as they do not defy the constitution, simple as that

>>139153835
Why hold rallies? That's not being a good citizen. Every time you have a large group gather in one place the authorities have to schedule extra officers to patrol, which means overtime.
It's costing your local government 100K's of $, if not millions. And all for what? So some idiots can complain?

Quick marching. You're only wasting money and your time. And you're being identified.

Stop it.

>>139164563
The constitution is a pact among the several states and the federal government establishing a power sharing agreement. The first amendment is a limitation on the power of the federal government as part of that power sharing agreement. It does not place a limit on the power of the state governments in that regard.

Just like the bit that specifies that the states must be republics is a limitation on the power of the state governments.

>>139164948

that's not how the 1st Amendment has been interpreted and understood. the Supreme Court has consistently ruled there is a Constitutional right to free speech that prevails even in cities and states, constraining those local governments

it's why, for example, the cities make up excuses to curtail speech like "public safety" and other nonsense

>>139165438
We've been over the difference between court interpretation and what the law is before. That's why they're two separate branches of government, with yet another one to execute the law.

It's not relevant to the argument you seem to be trying to mount in either a legal or ideological sense. You might as well argue that driving is not a privilege only to wind up discovering that the state (not the federal government) owns your car and that's why they can technically require a license from you, only to find out that it gets further ensnared in federal regulatory law, which itself isn't constitutional either.

What you're looking to do is called political organization, which is basically psychological warfare and plays by a set of rules all its own. That's all well and good, but you're not helping any decent cause if you get people all confused about what they're trying to fight for. That would be basically false flagging.

>>139164824
Nice try, George.

>>139165438
>>139164948

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erznoznik_v._City_of_Jacksonville

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heffernan_v._City_of_Paterson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givhan_v._Western_Line_Consolidated_School_District

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heffernan_v._City_of_Paterson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

etc

>>139165945

I'm saying the 1st Amendment makes clear there is a fundamental right to free speech, something that the government cannot violate, no matter the government (state/local/federal)

>What you're looking to do is called political organization, which is basically psychological warfare and plays by a set of rules all its own. That's all well and good, but you're not helping any decent cause if you get people all confused about what they're trying to fight for. That would be basically false flagging.

?? I'm not looking to do anything specific. I'm simply stating we all have a right to free speech and that city/state governments are violating that right. I haven't suggested we march or organize for anything, nor do I believe it's a good idea. protesting is mostly pointless. however, the right exists and the cities are wrong to deny it

>>139165998
Then hire a legal team. I think that's not a useful way to leverage the power of government in this case, but I don't have a problem with it if you want to give it a shot.

Calling for more people to stand around and complain in a large group about things they don't understand is about as useful as Anonymous trying to take on the banks.

>>139153835
>why the fuck do cities pretend we need a permit to assemble?

Because blocking roads is a fucking crime that pisses everyone off.

>>139166290
You can be reasonably arrested for all kinds of stuff, regardless of guilt or ultimate conviction. That's a way your free speech can be restricted. Stop being an absolutist who doesn't understand the law.

>>139166296

>Then hire a legal team.

I don't need a legal team, I've already enunciated the legal argument to you

>Calling for more people to stand around and complain in a large group about things they don't understand is about as useful as Anonymous trying to take on the banks.

that's not what I'm doing

>>139166466

all kinds of things "can" happen. doesn't mean it was legal or constitutional

>>139166812
Your legal argument sucks and you're not even pitching it to somebody who matters. What are you actually doing with your life?

>>139166895
>Your legal argument sucks

nope, see >>139165998

the Supreme Court agrees with me

>and you're not even pitching it to somebody who matters.

you don't know who is on /pol/, speak for yourself

>>139166990
If your legal argument didn't suck, I wouldn't be able to sit here and tell you why you're wrong ad infinitum. Try actually using the courts.

Or just post on /pol/. You won't even get a form letter from the government on fancy letterhead telling you how much they really care about your concerns.

>>139167276

my legal argument is correct, and I've already pointed you to SCOTUS cases proving my point.

I SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE I WANT AND SEXUAL INTERCOURSE MY MOTHER

>>139167276
>You won't even get a form letter from the government on fancy letterhead telling you how much they really care about your concerns.

/pol/ is more important than the government these days, unironically

>>139167631
It doesn't prove anything. It is at best legal precedent that might or might not be useful in building a case, if you even managed to fill out the paperwork to try to get it heard.

>>139167680
Correct. That's why trying to make a faulty legal argument based on a misunderstanding of the constitution and encouraging people to hold rallies in defiance of the local government (per your OP post) is not something that you should be doing.

>>139167865
Defeatist posts like yours are exactly why you are going to die in your bed filled with terror as they "legally" burn your house down.

>>139153835
It's actually terrifying how militarized the response to protests by the cities have become. America is a war zone on its own people, it's only a matter of time until the wrong psychopath gets control and the military vehicles, chemicals, and weapons within our cities are unleashed upon us. Seeing the recent reactions to protests it's clear, and when it happens we will look back and see that it was inevitable.

>>139167865

it's the highest judicial authority repeatedly interpreting the 1st Amendment in the manner I am - to apply to the states and localities as well as federal govt, simple as that

>if you even managed to fill out the paperwork to try to get it heard.

I don't need to hear another case to tell us what we already know. the precedent is clear already

>encouraging people to hold rallies in defiance of the local government (per your OP post) is not something that you should be doing.

no, again you misunderstand my argument due to sloppy reasoning. read the OP again

"IF you're going to hold a rally..."

I'm not encouraging people to protest. I'm saying, if you do protest, don't bother with the permit, since you already have the right. and if the city is leftist they will try to shut it down regardless

>>139168158
It's not defeatist. It's realist. There are people capable of taking on the situation from OP's angle, but he is not one of them. A guy like OP would wind up being as effective as the Bundys: trying to fight the good fight, but failing to listen to people who know how to fight it and winding up with people dead and in prison and really not much else to show for it.

>>139153835
You don't need a permit. While we are at it, you don't need to announce you're plans to an entire Sorros funded and media supported 5th column. There are group tactics that can be deployed to prevent apprehension as simple as locking arms. If it is an American rally with American symbolism, violence by the state will be terrible optics for any opposition. You can bring shields and helmets and defend yourself lawfully. record everything. have an objective, like marching to a speech or trump rally

>>139168276
And you can drive your car without a license and they will still arrest you if they don't like what you're doing regardless of whether you were technically following the law or not. Still, not many people, let alone the public at large, has seen much benefit from a handful of smart asses asking whether they're under arrest or being detained and not even knowing where to go from there.

>>139168487

no, see >>139168276

I'm saying when you do the permit thing you're playing their game, you've lost to begin with. no point to it since they're going to invent an excuse to shut it down anyway if they don't like you

if it's worth protesting, go protest. take a stand, have courage. do you think the left gets a permit for all its marches? hell no, but the courts also support their right to protest.

don't be a fucking pussy. we're not going to get anywhere by kowtowing to fatuous leftists

>>139169324
You're kowtowing to them and playing their game by seeking to protest their demonstrations and intentionally placing yourself in an antagonistic relationship with the government, which should be on your side instead, and which has full authority and capability to deal with the trouble makers.

If you want to go the legal route, go after the government for not doing its job. Don't go be a dick and distract them because you're upset that you think they're stopping you from being able to be a dick in public. Don't take the bait.

>>139168779

what can happen is not the point. cities and states can violate the constitution, that doesn't mean they are correct to do so. technically is half the point

again, if they can require a permit they can also try to shut an event down based on some other bullshit rationale

>>139169580
>You're kowtowing to them and playing their game by seeking to protest their demonstrations and intentionally placing yourself in an antagonistic relationship with the government

I'm not seeking to protest. I'm saying IF - read the OP again. IF IF IF you protest, don't bother with the permit or the bullshit. if you're in a hostile territory, expect opposition regardless. if it's worth marching, march

if not, don't

>which should be on your side instead,

well that's not always the case. see the section in the 1st Amendment regarding "redress of grievances"

>>139169775
It's not a violation of the constitution and they would be correct in shutting it down under many circumstances regardless of your choice of legal technicality or permit. You're a nigger and a moron.

And if the local government won't do it, and the federal government isn't taking care of the situation, then the governor should invoke the national guard.

>>139170008
Those would be redress of grievances against the federal government. Not the local government.

File: reel hebros.jpg (69KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1280x720px

not everyone requires a permit

>>139170037
>It's not a violation of the constitution

yes it is.

>they would be correct in shutting it down under many circumstances

but not any circumstances eg. a pretext

>You're a nigger and a moron.

cool story

>>139170115

it doesn't specify. it could be any government. but regardless, these cities require a permit no matter whether it's federal government or not, and likewise they will move to shut a protest down regardless whether it's federal govt or not based on a pretext