Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Briahna Joy Gray: Are We ALLOWED To Protest Elites?" video.

  1. No, they're not illegal. There are time, place, manner restrictions -- there is a perimeter that must be maintained and a judge's movements must never be impeded. But any law that prevents all protest is unconstitutional.
    10
  2.  @dustinavant2003  There is. You cannot impede anyone's ability to enter or leave, either, or protest once the local noise ordinances go into effect.
    2
  3. @MasteroMatter What was your view of Depp v. Heard, and the party outside? I knew that was a First Amendment case and hope both side's liability is overturned. But the point is, demonstrations outside the courthouse are ordinary. The content in one case is frivolous and in the other serious -- but we don't censor based on content.
    2
  4.  @jasonhenry8067  These demonstrations are legal, and perfectly normal, as long as they remain outside of the perimeter that ensures free access to the Court. Same is true for abortion clinics, and for private homes. The demonstrations may be ill-advised, but they are legal. (Remember Westboro Baptist Church?)
    2
  5. Which ones?
    1
  6. I certainly have, complete with an inventory of all the constitutional rights that depend on the very same privacy rights as described in Roe v. Wade, starting with birth control. State decisis is important in itself for a reason: it is like a contract with the government and the states not to intrude on the activities they promised to permit you to engage in, and you ordered your own life relying on that expectation.
    1
  7. Correct, and there is a defined perimeter and a defined time, based on content-neutral noise and nuisance ordinances, for exactly such First Amendment protected demonstrations. Thus abortion clinics had to accept such protests, and still do.
    1
  8. I think you're absolutely right.
    1
  9.  @dustinavant2003  I agree.
    1
  10. @MasteroMatter You are correct that they are legal. Absolutely.
    1
  11.  @chadjespersen8780  Barnes is not a very good lawyer where the Constitution is concerned. I've heard him make outrageous errors (like saying noncitizens do not have the same First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights as citizens). Any local law that cannot survive the First Amendment standard of scrutiny can be enforced. It is preempted. Demonstrations and intimidation are not the same thing.
    1
  12.  @jasonhenry8067  There have been pro- and anti-Roe demonstrations in Washington DC, before the Supreme Court and elsewhere, for generations. Nick Sandmann's class went to Washington expressly for the purpose of protesting Roe.
    1
  13.  @clementemunoz9915  thank you
    1
  14. It didn't remove any rights that we had for 50 years? You're more willing to twist your rhetoric into a pretzel than most people today, and that is saying a lot.
    1
  15. P. S. Consult the 9th Amendment. A right to privacy is implicit in the Fourth Amendment, and has always been --- and no wonder that's the amendment being slowly eviscerated. When the "conservative" Court upheld vaccine mandates for public universities, I knew what was coming next.
    1
  16.  @pittzu33  I have read her analysis. If a Supreme Court states that a constitutional right exists, then it does. It's called Marbury v. Madison, first of all. Ask any lawyer.
    1
  17.  @pittzu33  That's incorrect as a matter of law. If a Supreme Court case is binding precedent concerning a federal constitutional issue, or a federal statute, then that IS the law. It does not matter that it was wrongly decided or that it was later overturned. For a period of time, executing someone for a crime they committed as a juvenile WAS legal in several states. Now, it's unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Same thing for deliberate segregation of schools. It was legal. After Brown v. Board of Education, it became unconstitutional.
    1
  18.  @pittzu33  Are you joking? It's not obvious to you that I'm a lawyer? Up your game, then. No, no biologist thinks personhood is based on science. It's not a scientific determination. As for life, it represents an unbroken chain beginning at least a billion years ago. Gametes are alive prior to fertilization. A zygote is alive. The embryos in fertility clinics that were created using IVF are alive. (For a popular account, consult Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying.) In and of itself, this provides no ethical or legal guidance at all concerning personhood, and different religions define it differently.
    1
  19.  @pittzu33  Blocked Blech
    1
  20.  @pittzu33  Jealous people are a PITA, by the way.
    1
  21. Ethically and tactically, I agree. BUT protests outside of his house, provided they are far enough away and don't impede access, are First Amendment protected. It's legal. It's legal to do kind of dumb or rude stuff.
    1