close

Discovered in

dubthach

dubthach
4,559 Favs

Find other sites about

Related Sites

  • Showing 8 of 10
  • Reviews of the site
  • Join StumbleUpon or login to add a review! default avatar

  • Rated by Sigma-7 on May 17 2007, 12:45pm

    There's missing context. Were the recruiters holding a display, or were they visiting the library patrons? In any case, this can be good for using as a reference.

  • Rated by SleepingFox on May 17 2007, 12:27pm

    Precisely..! From the page: "The point is if we don't stand for these freedoms and we don't allow ourselves to be put on the line for those things, there won't be an option anymore."

  • Rated by Barking--Spider on May 17 2007, 7:31am

    It's so nice to live in a police state.

  • Rated by Mr-Ed on May 17 2007, 7:15am

    What did they say in the60's: FIGHT THE POWER!

  • Rated by induscrypt on May 16 2007, 7:29am

    From the page [The comments at the bottom]: "I'm sure if there were a pro-abortion focus group going on and I put signs up that said "abortion is murder" or something like that, that they would tell me to stop. If I didn't stop I'm pretty sure they would do something about it. "

  • Rated by JeraDarklighter on May 16 2007, 1:28am

    Interesting case. There are definitely rules about conduct in a library, such as not speaking loud/disturbing others. I think that the couple's actions *could* be considered rude, and yes, they were disturbing someone else's privacy (although they were really pretty minimally disruptive in general)... on that grounds, I think they could be asked to leave the library. However, being rude is NOT illegal (although some people seem to want it to be). Contrary to what Metal-Mario said, right to privacy is NOT as important as freedom of speech. Firstly, privacy is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Yes, some people have inferred that it is indirectly protected by the First Amendment, and others would like to amend the Constitution to include it. I'm generally pro-privacy. But in any case, this wasn't going on in the privacy of somebody's home, or even in a military recruiting office -- it was going on in a public place, a library... so I don't think right to privacy even figures into the issue. Blanket laws against being "disruptive" SHOULD be struck down, or at least made to be much better defined so they don't interfere with protected speech. I'm very prickly about this sort of thing... because I don't care WHAT you say, every time freedom of speech is swept under the rug, our society becomes a little less free. It is absolutely THE fundamental right.

  • Rated by TwistTim2006 on May 15 2007, 11:40pm

    Was it truly a public library? or was it a private one? the director said it was his library making it sound like a private library..... a little more research on this topic would be nice..... And while you are entitled to your view, and to have your say in a public place, you are not allowed to harass someone just because you disagree with them.... they were not right to continue the harassment after they were asked to stop....

  • Rated by dubthach on May 15 2007, 12:09pm

    ""If a statute punishes this conduct, then that statute is unconstitutional since it sweeps protected speech within its orbit," he says. "They were engaged in protected First Amendment speech. It's legitimate to use the public library in the same way that the recruiters were using it." On May 10, Yvette Coil says that her lawyer was advised that the state would drop charges if they would pay $100 in court fees. "Tim said he should not have to pay for being harassed," says Yvette. "No one has the right to take your freedoms away." The case is scheduled for June 5."