Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The following video is just one more video about school board members refusing to allow the public to express their views on Critical Race Theory. The video (about a school board meeting in Bucks County, PA) is pretty much "same old, same old" about people protesting schools teaching CRT and/or teaching very young children about sexuality -- I think many people are used to having their right to free speech suppressed, and especially with some school boards now.
However, this is the first video that I have seen that showed a written statute that would indicate to me that such suppression is actually illegal. QUOTE (this is at the 7:00 minute mark for those who don't want to listen to the "same old, same old"):
2014 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 53 - Abuse of Office
Section 5301 - Official oppression
Universal Citation: 18 PA Cons. Satu 5301 (2014)
5301. Official oppression
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.
END QUOTE
NOTE: I bolded (2) above, but it was highlighted in the video.
So, as my understanding that freedom of speech is a RIGHT, wouldn't anyone in any official capacity in any state or jurisdiction with such a statute who tries to "shut people up" be guilty of violating such a statute?
Perhaps those who want to speak out against any school board -- or any official body -- who "shuts people down" for voicing their opinion should do some research ahead of time so as to be able to cite such statute that is in their state (if such a statute exists) so as to possibly set the stage to have such people arrested or fined. This is to prevent the possible defense that the official did NOT know that his conduct was illegal.
In my opinion, it is time to let these tyrants know that they do NOT have the law on their side. And, btw, why hasn't the ACLU become involved? It seems to me that such cases are exactly why the ACLU was founded! (But perhaps I am wrong about this?)
Last edited by katharsis; 07-07-2021 at 08:54 AM..
There has long been an acknowledgement that free speech is tempered by time and place limitations.
One cannot go into any public space and say anything at any time. As an example, you cannot walk into your local public school at whim and start showing videos of Sonic the Hedgehog porn. You cannot walk into a jury trial, stand in front of the courtroom, and read your Star Trek fan-fic aloud for everybody's enjoyment.
In a public meeting, there are rules of order so that the public business can take place. There is a time, and time limits, for public comment. Other speech is out of order in the interest of public business being conducted.
Canada recently - at around 1:30am - quietly passed a gag law persecuting citizens for various "anti" statements. Country went to sleep with free speech and woke up with gag and muzzle. Wait for the same.
A. There is no absolute right to speak at a public meeting. As the United States Supreme Court put it, “The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy." Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984). Certain statutes create rights to speak at public hearings under certain circumstances (for example, a budget hearing under RSA 32:5 or a zoning board of adjustment hearing under RSA 676:7), and violation of these rights may in some instances be a violation of constitutional due process law.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
There has long been an acknowledgement that free speech is tempered by time and place limitations.
One cannot go into any public space and say anything at any time. As an example, you cannot walk into your local public school at whim and start showing videos of Sonic the Hedgehog porn. You cannot walk into a jury trial, stand in front of the courtroom, and read your Star Trek fan-fic aloud for everybody's enjoyment.
In a public meeting, there are rules of order so that the public business can take place. There is a time, and time limits, for public comment. Other speech is out of order in the interest of public business being conducted.
But your example of "Sonic the Hedgehog" is completely irrelevant. People are talking about (protesting) school board issues. If they do not allow people to protest when it is done non-violently, they are suppressing free speech.
But your example of "Sonic the Hedgehog" is completely irrelevant. People are talking about (protesting) school board issues. If they do not allow people to protest when it is done non-violently, they are suppressing free speech.
I do, however, agree with time limits.
That is your opinion, NOT the law. They can protest, just not in the middle of a meeting. They may protest outside, like normal protestors. No one is stopping their right to speech.
People need to learn how this stuff works, especially as they are all "patriots".
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
With free speech is responsibility. People who want to speak at city council meetings or school boards need to; be respectful, know the rules that govern the meeting process and follow them, be prepared with factually backed information to reinforce their point, and wait their turn.
That is your opinion, NOT the law. They can protest, just not in the middle of a meeting. They may protest outside, like normal protestors. No one is stopping their right to speech.
People need to learn how this stuff works, especially as they are all "patriots".
So how is the statute cited NOT the law?
And if you watched the video, the school board person-in-charge DID stop the the person, who was seated at a table with a microphone, from speaking. This was not a case of someone barging into a meeting waving a picket sign and disrupting the meeting. He WAS allowed to speak until he started saying something that he school board person did not like. (And that italicized sentence is NOT opinion, but fact.) Please watch the video -- or at least starting at the 3:00 minute mark if you want to skip the commentary and just watch the censorship itself.
Last edited by katharsis; 07-07-2021 at 08:25 AM..
Canada recently - at around 1:30am - quietly passed a gag law persecuting citizens for various "anti" statements. Country went to sleep with free speech and woke up with gag and muzzle. Wait for the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
