Yeah, first amendment issues come up on cases where roadblocks are used as a tactic designed to prevent people from assembling for a demonstration. The last time I remember this tactic being used was against a environmental rally (I think FotE) against logging in a forest on the West Coast. The cops set up roadblocks on all roads leading to the area.
The infamous Gilmore case, which is the one I think your thinking of, cited a First Amendment violation because he alleged he was prevented from attending some rally but the court found that he wasn't being prevented from assembling, just using an airplane to get there because he refused to show identification--indirect perhaps, but not a facial challenge. (I think that's the one where he was also wearing a button reading "POTENTIAL TERRORIST". That might have been a different lawsuit, though.)
Now should these arbitrary stops happen on subways inbound to Boston during the DNC week, you could add a First Amendment violation to the challenge. What's happening "today" is more arbitrary on people moving from place to place. I have no plans (today, anyway) to attend rallies in Boston but I like to go to the MFA. I suppose I could claim First Amendment issues but I doubt it would be a factor in the decision.
Having said all this, we are probably in agreement that what's going on is bad. I just like using a sniper's bullet instead of a shotgun when making a case.
A sniper bullet will kill anybody because people are all vulnerable in the same place.
A shotgun will kill anything because it eventually, it hits everything where it is vulnerable. When talking politics, I'd rather convince everybody with one argument than convince one person at a time with every argument.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
Re: hmm...
The infamous Gilmore case, which is the one I think your thinking of, cited a First Amendment violation because he alleged he was prevented from attending some rally but the court found that he wasn't being prevented from assembling, just using an airplane to get there because he refused to show identification--indirect perhaps, but not a facial challenge. (I think that's the one where he was also wearing a button reading "POTENTIAL TERRORIST". That might have been a different lawsuit, though.)
Now should these arbitrary stops happen on subways inbound to Boston during the DNC week, you could add a First Amendment violation to the challenge. What's happening "today" is more arbitrary on people moving from place to place. I have no plans (today, anyway) to attend rallies in Boston but I like to go to the MFA. I suppose I could claim First Amendment issues but I doubt it would be a factor in the decision.
Having said all this, we are probably in agreement that what's going on is bad. I just like using a sniper's bullet instead of a shotgun when making a case.
Re: snipers versus shotguns
on 28 May 2004 10:57 (UTC)A shotgun will kill anything because it eventually, it hits everything where it is vulnerable. When talking politics, I'd rather convince everybody with one argument than convince one person at a time with every argument.