No First Amendment Right to March on a Freeway

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Please have a look around and if you like what you see, please consider registering an account and joining the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Benefactor
Messages
13,574
Reaction score
4,241
Points
268
Location
Texas
United-States
...
In November 2021, appellant Tess Dornfeld was charged with a petty misdemeanor for being a pedestrian on a controlled-access highway in November 2020, when she was participating in a demonstration as part of a group of about 600 people who walked onto I-94, a controlled access highway….

Appellant argues that "her arrest, prosecution, and conviction violate her constitutional right to freedom of speech" because: (1) her conduct on I-94, a controlled access highway, was protected speech; (2) Minn. Stat. § 169.305, subd. 1(c) (2022), providing that the commissioner of transportation may prohibit or regulate the use of any controlled access highway by pedestrians if that use is incompatible with the normal and safe flow of traffic, is a state regulation of free speech; (3) the constitutionality of such regulations is subject to intermediate scrutiny, meaning that the regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and must leave open ample alternative channels for communication, and (4) the action of the police in arresting appellant was not narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest because the police did not permit protesters to leave I-94.

But appellant does not explain her implicit view that her right to free speech supersedes the rights of those travelling on a controlled-access highway to travel in safety, nor does she explain why her arrest deprived her of alternative channels of communication. She has not shown that her right to free speech was violated by the commissioner's right to regulate pedestrians' use of a controlled-access highway or by the police's activity to enforce that regulation...


I've been overseas in Central American countries when protests erupted and labor unions blocked highways (with mountains of flaming tires) and access to airports, hospitals and such. Does it fall under the literal definition for terrorism? Possibly, but I can tell you that I didn't find the tactic to be a persuasive argument in favor of their position.
 
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

When I'm trying to GET somewhere, the LAST thing I want is to have someone else shove THEIR concerns, into my life - by blocking my progress, making me late, endangering me. All I find it to be, is enraging - and it predisposes me AGAINST what they're agitating for, no matter how otherwise reasonable it may be.

They have a right to "Free Speech" on the streets. As soon as they impede the movement of thousands of others, they've lost that right - and are subject to reprisals by citizens who are trying to meet their own responsibilities.

I would submit that anyone who runs down these people, or who lethally attacks people dropping rocks or setting flaming tires on highways...they should be blameless, and organizers (and paymasters, like Soros) behind these disruptions, should be held to account for deaths resulting.
 
Back
Top Bottom