Skip to main content

Freedom of Speech in California

The Constitution of the State of California is interesting.  Wikipedia tells us that the constitution is one of the longest in the world, superceded in length by only those of Alabama and India.  [Go figure.]

With 512 amendments, the Constitution of California is eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution and has been criticized as “a perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be” and derided for being “more about legal technicalities than principles; an embarrassment for an otherwise cutting-edge state.”

But it does have a nice, pithy statement regarding Freedom of Speech which is a cornerstone of the State and, famously, a cornerstone of our mostly-great country.  It is something  we Liberals revere and the totalitarian and imperious leaders in the Leftist wing of the homeless-services industry in Homeless World, based on their actions, want scuttled.

From the Constitution of the State of California:

ARTICLE 1, SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write
and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible
for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty
of speech or press.
And here the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in toto:

AMENDMENT 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.


Nagarjuna said…
As I continue to learn, people don't like it when you criticize them. Your criticisms might be true, false, or partially true, but they don't like it in any case, and they will often no longer tolerate your presence around them.

I suspect that the truer your criticisms are or the truer those you criticize think--on a conscious or, more often, subconscious level--they are, the more likely they are to recoil from you with angry intolerance. You've obviously hit a raw nerve with some of the so-called "helpers" of Sacramento's homeless, and they are reacting in a natural albeit regrettable manner.

I don't see them trying to violate the Constitution by making your criticism illegal. They're just exercising their Constitutional right to act like assholes.
Tom Armstrong said…
But Nagarjuna, they actively reciprocate against criticisms in a manner that doubly-Unconstitutionally restricts freedom of speech.

There is tort law such that they can act if there is any question about the truth of what I write.

Their effort is to restrict the Freedom itself, all-the-while under the (false) pretense of a claim of representing homeless people.

I would say that Freedom of Speech most centrally is there for the most dispossessed. Blacks and gays have been able to address prejudice against them because of Freedom of Speech.

The poor and homeless try to use Freedom of Speech, too. Examples are César Chávez and Mohatma Ghandi in South Africa. Surely, retaining First Amendment rights for the poorest in a society is a cornerstone of justice and democracy. Instead we have, in Sacramento, the absurdity of homeless-services outfits 'creating' their own bogus 'homeless leaders' as skirts they hide behind to further their own institutional interests. It's obscene.
Tom Armstrong said…
ALSO, I should point out that when I when I went to the Sacramento Community Homeless Forum, at Sacramento State University, on Tuesday, and passed out the Ugliness of SafeGround fliers, outside, Libby Fernandez and Tamie Dramer tried to have me stopped.

Universities, traditionally, going way way back, are keen on freedoms of all sorts, and most-especially the speech thing.

The week prior, I had emailed the closest thing I found to THE security guy at CSUS to let him know what was up and attached a copy of what was then the text of what I was intent of passing out.

There was not a problem. I hadn't dotted all my i's and crossed my t's, perhaps, to get THE BADGE I would have had, ideally, to do what I was doing, but I was probably fully legit anyway. Meantime, Libby and Tamie were out there having a cow, watching speech freedom going on in all its red-, white- and blue-bannered glory.

Popular posts from this blog

The Mission Five Years Ago, And Today

I have spent the night the past two weeks plus at the Union Gospel Mission and am having an excellent time of it -- not only regards to sleeping in the dorm that the mission has, but also listening to the sermons that are delivered in the early evening. The Christmas music that is performed is also splendid. [And the food -- the FOOD -- has been fantastic during my stay so far! A happier Tom there couldn't be.] I chatted with a pal last night about The Mish – about how things were about five years ago when we both used the mission’s services frequently, and how thing are, today.
Five years ago, there were a lot scuffles between the guys when the front gate was opened in the early afternoon and in the area near the contact window there were some brawls as guys fought over where guys were in line to get a bed in the dorm.
Nowadays, however, the mission is very much a peaceful place both on the grounds of the facility and and out on the street.
I do not know what transformative eve…

Homeless Sacramentans lose case that would have given them the right to set up outdoor camping

8/11/13 I certainly give attorneys Mark Merin and Cat Williams credit for pursuing a case against the city of Sacramento to give homeless Sacramentans the right to set up tents and a campsite. I wanted them to win their case, but they didn't. They lost it.

BUT, it is also necessary to look at the particulars of the case that Merin and Williams brought and see that the situation underlying the court case was not very compelling.

During the period eight years ago when 22 homeless campers set up their tents and brought in supplies to Mark Merin's vacant lot at C Street, near 12th, there was loud noise and plenty of other mayhem. Drug dealers were on the street encouraging buys from the campers. The Hernandez couple that lived in a house nearby were constantly being taunted by the campers, disrupting their lives.

Per always with Safe Ground camps, calm was deserted for the sake of boisterousness.

Leader John Kraintz and the other Safe Grounders would claim to have signed strict a…

After a Three-Month Hiatus, a Fall from a Ladder & a Broken Wrist, Evangelist Jimmy Roughton Returns to Union Gospel Mission to Preach

After being away from Union Gospel Mission for a quarter of a year, Jimmy Roughton returned to preach at UGM on the cold night of December 13 -- despite suffering [a little? a lot? dunno.] from a fall from a ladder that likely immediately preceded a significant injury (a wrist that was broken).

It was good to see his group from Capital Free Will Baptist Church up on the pulpit, with Roughton rough-and-ready to seduce and inspire the happily-captivate crowd at UGM.

Roughton told us in his opening words that he was now in his 27th year coming to the mission.

I recall the first preaching I had heard from Roughton on June 13, 2009. At that time and up to the current time, Roughton is the only preacher I had ever heard evoke Pascal's Wager -- which is something he would do, occasionally thereafter at the mission. He would evoke Pascal's wager, yet again, last night [12/13/17].

Pascal's wager

Last night, Jimmy evoked Pascal's Wager. He did so near the end of his talk, citing …