The notion that the First Amendment's free speech clause grants us license to do anything at any time and in any place is a rather immature reading of what that all-important document really means.
The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law ... 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."
It was designed to ensure that Americans could freely criticize their government without fear of official reprisal. There's nothing in there about shouting down speakers you disagree with or playing your guitar wherever you want.
And yet right now, we have the American Civil Liberties Union demanding Oceanside get rid of a law prohibiting musical performances on city streets, and a group of Muslim college students (including some from UC Riverside) claiming they had a constitutional right to disrupt an Israeli official's speech.
We find both arguments nonsensical.
The students who tried to shout down the Israeli ambassador to the United States last year during an event at UC Irvine had absolutely no right to deny their fellow citizens the ability to hear what the ambassador had to say. The only abridgement of the First Amendment here was the students' violation of everyone else's right to peaceably assemble.
There was nothing that prevented the students from expressing their disagreement with the ambassador's message elsewhere in a way that did not deny others the right to hear the ambassador. They could have picketed outside the event, held a rally elsewhere on campus, distributed fliers ---- there were myriad ways to express their point of view in a meaningful way visible to the campus community.
So prohibiting them from denying the First Amendment rights of those gathered to hear the ambassador in no way denied them the ability to get their own message out.
As for musician Mark Mayville's argument that Oceanside's regulation of public music is a violation of his rights, we'd refer to the above. Plenty of places exist for him to perform his music that don't force other people to have to hear it while going about their business. Cities generally use zoning in order to group like activities; further, licensing of public performers is accepted practice.
Surely the ACLU has something better to do with its time than defend a mythical license to strum.
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_30793971-9d92-5bd6-81d0-cb4207e3fc20.html#ixzz1YFynW5va
The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law ... 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."
It was designed to ensure that Americans could freely criticize their government without fear of official reprisal. There's nothing in there about shouting down speakers you disagree with or playing your guitar wherever you want.
And yet right now, we have the American Civil Liberties Union demanding Oceanside get rid of a law prohibiting musical performances on city streets, and a group of Muslim college students (including some from UC Riverside) claiming they had a constitutional right to disrupt an Israeli official's speech.
We find both arguments nonsensical.
The students who tried to shout down the Israeli ambassador to the United States last year during an event at UC Irvine had absolutely no right to deny their fellow citizens the ability to hear what the ambassador had to say. The only abridgement of the First Amendment here was the students' violation of everyone else's right to peaceably assemble.
There was nothing that prevented the students from expressing their disagreement with the ambassador's message elsewhere in a way that did not deny others the right to hear the ambassador. They could have picketed outside the event, held a rally elsewhere on campus, distributed fliers ---- there were myriad ways to express their point of view in a meaningful way visible to the campus community.
So prohibiting them from denying the First Amendment rights of those gathered to hear the ambassador in no way denied them the ability to get their own message out.
As for musician Mark Mayville's argument that Oceanside's regulation of public music is a violation of his rights, we'd refer to the above. Plenty of places exist for him to perform his music that don't force other people to have to hear it while going about their business. Cities generally use zoning in order to group like activities; further, licensing of public performers is accepted practice.
Surely the ACLU has something better to do with its time than defend a mythical license to strum.
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_30793971-9d92-5bd6-81d0-cb4207e3fc20.html#ixzz1YFynW5va
