CltAltAcctDel t1_j4qzhdk wrote
Reply to comment by libananahammock in LAWSUIT: FIRE sues Pennsylvania county after officials ban talking politics in a public park by NeatPeteYeet
Who cares who funded them when they are defending a sound principle? Your post is a perfect example ‘people I don’t like are in favor of it therefore I’m against it’.
BluCurry8 t1_j4tcle7 wrote
So critical think is not your strong suit. There is an agenda and this is not a case where the government is limiting the groups ability to perform free speech. This group is soliciting. For as much as we talk about freedom of speech it is well past time people learn more about what is means.
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4thqb8 wrote
They are not soliciting. They are campaigning to gain access to the ballot. It is very much political speech that is protected by 1st amendment. Political speech is the most protected type of speech and gaining access to the ballot is a decidedly political act.
Here’s a SCOTUS case saying gathering of signatures is protected speech (unanimously decided)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/414/
Here’s an example of someone engaged in the exact same conduct successfully suing a municipal for violation of 1st amendment rights.
https://www.lp.org/conn-libertarians-receive-37k-settlement-in-petitioner-harassment-suit/
BluCurry8 t1_j4uzo61 wrote
They are soliciting if they are collecting signatures. Sorry you seem to not understand the meaning of the word and are so willing to give away your private data.
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4v5ns3 wrote
You can call it whatever you want, the activity - gathering signatures for a petition - is protected by the 1st Amendment. I provided links supporting my position. You’ve provided a semantic assertion. Please support your position
libananahammock t1_j4qzk9i wrote
Lol that’s rich coming from you
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4r09na wrote
Excellent job addressing the underlying issue.
libananahammock t1_j4r2hba wrote
Lol okay bud you’re the one who took it off topic. Keep being the hypocrite you’ve been on Reddit. Rules for thee but not for me, am I right?
And the funding was talking about the group in the article who was threatening to sue. I mentioned it because they themselves call themselves non partisan.
Also, if your wife or daughter was with their kids in the park you’d be okay with an aggressive candidate in their face asking for their full name, address and phone number? I don’t give a crap what political party you a part of or claim to be a part of (any creeper can claim to be collecting signatures) I don’t want to be approached in the park by an aggressive man. I mean you’d think the party that screams pedo at anyone they don’t like would understand that some people are cautious around strange people being AGGRESSIVE when campaigning which many people who were there said as much if you read other articles about this that aren’t published by the people with the agenda.
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4r4a13 wrote
You assumed the candidate was aggressive. You’ve created a whole narrative of how this went down based on zero evidence. Which just bolsters my initial point that facts are the least important of your position.
Candidates for office are required to approach people to get signatures. It’s either approach them in public places like sidewalks or parks or go door to door. If you have an issue with them obtain personal information your issue is with the law not the candidate
If a candidate or their campaigners are being aggressive and harassing people that is not covered by the 1st amendment.
libananahammock t1_j4r4eav wrote
LOL I didn’t assume, like you like to say DO YOUR RESEARCH! Look it up bud
CltAltAcctDel t1_j4rahtl wrote
Link it. I’ve found nothing that indicates they were being aggressive. If you’ve got something I’ll be more than happy to read. That doesn’t change the underlying point that peaceful gathering petitions is protected speech and anyone who defends free speech should be applauded for that defense
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments