Thursday, October 14, 2010

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  Wikipedia tells us that the constitution is one of the longest in the world, superceded in length by only those of Alabama and India.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.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Blogger 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.

October 15, 2010 at 10:04 AM  
Blogger 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.

October 15, 2010 at 11:54 AM  
Blogger 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.

October 15, 2010 at 1:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home