Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 47Seagulls
Joined: 3/16/2018
Msg: 901
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthemPage 37 of 45    (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)

Well seagull, you do evidence hypocrisy at its finest.


I learn well, I see it daily here. You are the master of hypocrisy . As are a few more.


You claim to be a liberal and a leftist...you probably are pro-choice I'm sure, nobody should tell a woman what to do with her body, and yet who do you follow right down the line, who do you swoon over?


I claim to be a liberal. That's it. And why throw pro-choice into the discussion...about taking a kneel - oh look, a squirrel. Alzheimer's, do you have early onset Alzheimer's? I support all kinds of things that many closed minded folks might have an issue with.


Lying jovan tells you how to think...he tells you that you can't believe in God if you want, he tells you that mom's can abort their fetuses but can't circumcise their sons.


I have no idea what he told YOU, he didn't tell me any of that. I'm an adult and can make up my own mind. Adult, that is the operative word.

Again, what does abortion have to do with circumcision - oh look, a squirrel.


He tells you israelis do not have the right to defend themselves. You but (sic)it all. "Oh Jovan. You are so smart...you say race does not exist so it must not exist...oh Jovan those terrible tribalistic people, oh jovan, you don't like kj because she sees through you, so i'm not going to like her either, oh jovan..tell me what else to think please"


Wow. Here comes the high school part.

Nope, I said nothing about Israel and it having a right to defend itself.
Nope, did not fawn over Jo Van. I agreed with him regarding circumcision - nothing more.
Jew is not a race. Its a religion.
KJ is a fixation of yours. Whether she is the girl of your dreams or you conjure up visions of her when you masturbate or whether you compare all the women in your life to her....whatever - its a fixation, not healthy, kinda icky in fact.


Hypocrisy and critical thinking at its finest seagull...you and lying jovan should get a room.


Why? It seems most adults on here can control themselves without forming unhealthy fantasy relationships. Not everyone on here has a fixation on someone like you do with KJ. The rest of us seem to be adults and can form critical adult thinking regarding posters on here. Is this because of your juvenile, high school mentality? As for critical thinking - I can't help thinking about your life and this fascination with the forums and the people. Apparently, your life is not fulfilling. That's actually sad and pathetic.
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 902
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 8:33:15 AM
^^^^^ well I do give you credit where it's due...you are excellent at insulting and offending people. Maybe that is why you swoon about Jovan....it is impossible for him to post without insulting someone or Thing? He gets it...the art of insults that is. Esp on studying him, keep on insulting, keep on living under the delusion that you are right and everybody else wrong...just like Jovan.

I do note how you deflected by not explain your obvious hypocrisy,..so how is it okay for moms to abort their fetuses again but not okay for them to circumcise their infant sons? Can you account for this hypocrisy or will you deflect...again.
 ja6425
Joined: 1/16/2018
Msg: 903
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 8:34:08 AM
I agree with ghost on KJ. And nope, he isn't "fixated" with her, he sees what kind of person she is, someone you should model yourself over. 47, you are very good at stereotyping people, along with being a huge hypocrite. Maybe KJ will come back someday and you can learn more from her. I know you will read this even though I know you won't reply because you said you would never reply again.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 904
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 8:38:54 AM
Funny, but I haven't noticed any NFL players performing abortions or circumcisions during the national anthem. Did I somehow skip into another thread without realizing it? Edit to add...there seems to be a damned parrot flying around in here again.
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 905
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 8:43:22 AM
Lol^^^^guilty as charged...but I don't think I started it, or did I?

Home Logout MyForums

In order to maintain the highest quality forums you are restricted to having no more then 2 of the last 10 posts on a thread.
Since 2 of the last 10 posts are yours you can not post to this thread
 47Seagulls
Joined: 3/16/2018
Msg: 906
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 11:24:15 AM
Ghostata

This bears a second time around:

{quote]Why? It seems most adults on here can control themselves without forming unhealthy fantasy relationships. Not everyone on here has a fixation on someone like you do with KJ. The rest of us seem to be adults and can form critical adult thinking regarding posters on here. Is this because of your juvenile, high school mentality? As for critical thinking - I can't help thinking about your life and this fascination with the forums and the people. Apparently, your life is not fulfilling. That's actually sad and pathetic.

I can't help thinking about your life this fascination with the forums and the people. Apparently, your life is not fulfilling.

Deflect all you want - none of us take this anywhere near as seriously as you. No one here does. Just you. Sad, unfulfilled life.

Abortions, circumcision - oh look, a squirrel. Apples to Fords.

Its too bad you don't support respectful NFL players protesting against dead African Americans like you do your rants about Jo Van or your precious KJ. Its always about you. Sad, unfulfilled life.
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 907
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 11:47:03 AM
Take it to the Israeli Board...where I accuse you of deflection, which of course you are doing again. If you don't see the analogy between being pro-choice for abortion but anti-choice for circumcision.....then you are intentionally stupid...very sad. Can't disagree with Lying Jovan though can you? No fuking integrity..... that's what I find saddest. :-)
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 908
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 12:03:24 PM
You know, with regard to my "hijacking this thread"...pretty much anything that could be said has been said...by me and others. How many times does anybody have to say the same things. Since we are dealing with quasi governmental park facilities, its is very questionable whether the NFL can dictate anything to the players.... per my post (as too cash) at 615 among others in this thread:

Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 919 AM
^^^^^ hey Flick you idiot, read this case. I get it will be far over your head, but it has lots of simple information in it. Its older but fairly easy reasoning for a stupid fuktard, so I am posting just for you.



CITY OF JAMESTOWN, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Gertrude A. SCHULER, Defendant and Appellant.
CITY OF JAMESTOWN, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Elizabeth I. KISER, Defendant and Appellant.

Crim. Nos. 910171-910192.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Nov. 20, 1991.
Page 832

Joseph F. Larson, II (argued), Asst. City Atty., Jamestown, for plaintiff and appellee.

Paul T. Crary (argued), Walhalla, for defendants and appellants. Appearance by Peter B. Crary.

LEVINE, Justice.

The appellants were convicted of violating a Jamestown trespass ordinance. We hold that the application of the ordinance under the facts of this case violated the appellants' First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. For that reason, we reverse the convictions.

The appellants waived jury trials and submitted their cases to the trial court on stipulated facts and briefs. We refer to those facts throughout this opinion.

The City of Jamestown holds title to the Jamestown Mall, as is required by the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 40-57, N.D.C.C., for MIDA bond financing under that act. The City has assigned its interest in the property to James Refrigeration Company, the developer of the mall, who, in turn, has leased space in the mall to various tenants, one of whom is Dr. Robert Lucy.

On the north wall of the Jamestown Mall, located adjacent to the east and west entrances, is a posted notice which says in part:

Page 833

"Any unauthorized activity (exclusive of activity expressly permitted by statute) in the Jamestown Mall common areas not directly related to the commercial purpose for which the Jamestown Mall was developed, regardless of whether that activity is conducted by one or more persons and regardless of whether that activity is peaceful or non-peaceful, will be considered unlawful trespassing, and it will be treated as such by the owners and managing agents of the Jamestown Mall.

* * * * * *

"By way of example only, and not intended to be a complete list, the following are activities which constitute trespassing and will not be permitted: Loitering, soliciting, speech making, picketing, distributing handbills or other literature, seeking signatures on petitions, or taking surveys (or anything else which might be classified as expressive activity )." [Emphasis in original.]

The appellants entered the Jamestown Mall and conducted abortion protests in the hallway near Dr. Lucy's second floor medical office. The appellants were informed that "they were not authorized to be in front of Dr. Lucy's office" and were asked to leave. They ignored the notice and remained in place.

The appellants were in the mall to protest and not to engage in any form of business or commerce. During the protests, they sang, prayed and maintained silent vigil. At oral argument, counsel for the parties agreed that the protestors were in all respects peaceful and orderly. They did not attempt to inhibit ingress or egress of patients at Dr. Lucy's clinic nor did they threaten injury to any person or property.

The Jamestown police, summoned by Dr. Lucy, arrested the protesters for criminal trespass. 1 The protestors were subsequently convicted and have filed this appeal.

On appeal, the appellants urge reversal of their convictions because they are based on conduct protected by the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and peaceable assembly. They assert that application of the city trespass ordinance under these circumstances, to enforce the mall's prohibition against expressive activity, directly infringed upon their First Amendment rights and that their convictions must, therefore, be overturned. We agree.

The First Amendment forbids the enactment of laws "abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Peaceful picketing and leafletting are examples of expressive activities involving speech protected under the First Amendment. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 103 S.Ct. 1702, 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983). A restriction on the right to engage in protest or picketing on an issue of public concern "operates at the core of the First Amendment" and such restrictions on public-issue picketing are traditionally subjected to careful scrutiny. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988). The scope of protected speech was discussed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340, 358 (7th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 970, 93 S.Ct. 1443, 35 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973):

"Ideally the analysis should begin with a delineation of the scope of speech protected by the first amendment.... All expression of ideas is effected by, or is, itself, conduct, and all conduct necessarily expresses some idea, emotion, or thought. Perhaps we can do no better than a generalization which equates first amendment 'speech' with conduct which makes an offer in the market place of ideas. Indeed we need no more precise delineation for the purpose of considering the statute here, for it is clear that individual or group conduct for the dominant

Page 834

and virtually sole purpose of expressing views on public questions is well within the concept of speech protected by the first amendment."
The City of Jamestown acknowledges that the protestors assembled in a peaceful and orderly manner for the sole purpose of expressing their views on the abortion issue. The City does not argue that the activity of the protesters involved opprobrious or objectionable conduct. Rather, the City only argues that the protestors' activities were lawfully banned by the mall owners, because the mall is privately owned and is not, therefore, subject to First Amendment restrictions.

The constitutional guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state; it provides no protection against infringement by a private corporation or person. Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, 424 U.S. 507, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976). To direct our analysis, we briefly trace the history of United States Supreme Court decisions involving the First Amendment in a shopping mall setting.

The United States Supreme Court recognized an exception to the requirement of state action for First Amendment purposes in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946), when it determined that a privately owned corporate town, having all the characteristics of other municipalities, was subject to the people's First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. In reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized that the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment "lies at the foundation of free government by free [people]." Id., at 326 U.S. at 509, 66 S.Ct. at 280, 90 L.Ed. at 270.

Finding striking similarities between the business district of the corporate town in Marsh, supra, and the Logan Valley Mall, a privately owned shopping center, the high court held, in Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603 (1968), that peaceful picketers in the mall must be accorded their First Amendment free speech rights and that the mall owners could not bar protected First Amendment expression conducted in the mall which was consonant with the mall's purpose and use. The majority decision, written by Justice Marshall, recognized that the premises of a shopping center resemble the business areas of a municipality, freely accessible and open to the public, which are historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights.

In the subsequent case of Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972), the court backed away from its position in Logan Valley Plaza, supra. Tanner also involved a privately owned shopping mall. The mall owners refused to allow persons in the common areas of the mall to distribute materials protesting the draft and the Vietnam War. The high court concluded that a ban on the distribution of literature in the mall did not violate the First Amendment rights of protestors whose attempted expression was unrelated to any specific mall activity and who had alternative means of communicating outside the mall.

In the later case of Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, the high court fully retreated from its position in Logan Valley Plaza, supra, and, expressly overruling that case, held that the constitutional guarantee of free expression under the First Amendment has no part to play where persons are attempting to exercise that right in a privately owned shopping mall. 2

Page 835

Our case is different. In Tanner, supra, and Hudgens, supra, there were privately owned shopping malls. Here, the City of Jamestown owns the Jamestown Mall and leases it to a private developer. To determine whether the appellants' convictions violated their First Amendment rights we must conduct a two-part analysis. See Citizens to End Animal Suffering v. Faneuil Hall, 745 F.Supp. 65 (D.Mass.1990). First, we must determine whether the regulation of the appellants' expressive activity by the Jamestown Mall constitutes state action. Second, if state action is involved, we must then characterize the forum involved to establish the constitutional standard by which we judge the mall's regulation of expressive activity.

The appellants assert that the City ownership of this property brings the mall's actions within the realm of state action to which the First Amendment applies. However, the prosecutor argues that there is no state action because the City has mere legal title, and has, in effect, leased away or assigned all control as well as financial risk and benefit to the private developers of the mall. The key question is whether the government, as an owner of property, can, by lease or assignment, disengage the property from the realm of state action and the constitutional imperatives that state action carries with it. We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the City has not divested the mall of its "state action" designation for First Amendment purposes. We find several federal cases persuasive on this issue.

Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F.2d 619 (5th Cir.1981), involved the constitutionality of a local ordinance governing distribution of literature and fund solicitation at the Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport complex. The argument in that case was that the leasing of every square foot of the airport to private air carriers removed the facility from the "public forum mold." The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, stating:

"Despite the leaseholds of the air carriers, ownership of the airport remains in the municipal governments. Moreover, the existence of a leasehold by a private party on public property does not remove from the realm of state action restrictions on the exercise of civil rights at the site." Fernandes, supra, 663 F.2d at 627.

In International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Schrader, 461 F.Supp. 714 (N.D.Tex.1978), a city owned facility, the Dallas Convention Center, was leased to private tenants for various activities. In rejecting the contention that the private leasing of the facility warranted a declaration "of the nonpublic status of the physical plant," the federal district court said:

"The City seems to seek a declaration of the nonpublic status of the physical plant. Such a blanket exception from the First Amendment is neither constitutionally permissible nor procedurally available. Although the City might act in a proprietary role as landowner and let the premises on nondiscriminatory terms, it cannot furnish as part of its rental package assurance to a tenant that the tenant's activity is insulated from the First Amendment.

* * * * * *

"Any suggestion that a tenant enjoys unfettered rights to exclude because its activity is wholly private ignores the dual role of the City as sovereign and as landlord in enforcing that censorship; it equally ignores the reality that public forum is not a concept controlled by the common law of real property, running with the land or reverting to and among tenancies. Given the interrelationship of the City, private property owners and the sometime propinquity to public events of the center's usage, the concept here serves as an analytical tool for assaying the relative interest of owners of private property and the interest of a free society in the highly placed value of open markets for ideas. A tenant of the city need not take his private property, here a leasehold interest into that marketplace, but if he does, he must abide its rules; ..." Schrader, supra, 461 F.Supp. at 717-718 [Emphasis added].

In Citizens to End Animal Suffering v. Faneuil Hall, supra, protestors were denied

Page 836

the right to distribute literature in lanes between buildings at Faneuil Hall Marketplace by the private owners who leased the marketplace from the city of Boston. The protestors claimed violations of their First Amendment rights and sought a preliminary injunction against future interference with their attempts to distribute literature. In granting the injunction, the federal district court found that the private owners' actions were fairly attributable to the state. A key factor in the decision was the city's fee simple ownership. Also significant, the city leased the property to revitalize the downtown area and so derived economic benefit from the restrictions imposed by the owners to enhance the success of the marketplace.
Although Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961) involved racial discrimination rather than infringement of free speech, the decision is instructive for its holding that the conduct of a private restaurant owner, who leased space in a building owned by a state agency and financed by public funds, constituted state action.

These cases persuade us that the Jamestown Mall's restrictions on expressive activity constituted state action in this case. The City's ownership of the property is, in our view, a significant factor in concluding that the attempted infringement of free speech by the mall involved state action. We reject the prosecutor's argument that, because legal title was taken by the City primarily for purposes of meeting statutory prerequisites to MIDA bond financing, the City's ownership should not be equated with the presence of state action.

In Lawless-Avelar v. Westminster Mall Company, 819 P.2d 55 (1991), the Supreme Court of Colorado held that free speech rights under its state constitution applied to a private shopping center. In finding the presence of state action in the mall's activities, the court made the following statements with which we agree:

"Our finding that governmental involvement exists here is not based on any single factor. Nevertheless, we find significant the City's two million dollar purchase, financed through the sale of municipal bonds, of improvements which the Company made to adjacent streets and drainage systems. It is now common for governmental entities to compete, by providing financial subsidies or inducements, to attract private business so as to reap the benefits of an increased tax base. Economic necessity, however, cannot provide the cover for government-supported infringements of speech."

The Jamestown City Council issued a resolution approving the MIDA bond financing for the shopping center. In that resolution, the Council expressly recognized "the desirability and need for industrial and business expansion within the community to improve and enhance the economic growth of same." Thus, the project was viewed as a benefit for the City and community as well as for its private participants.

We conclude that the City of Jamestown, as legal owner of the property, could not, by lease or assignment of the property, sweep aside state action and in the process erase the guarantees of free speech accorded to the people under the First Amendment. Therefore, we hold that the restrictions on speech by the mall authorities involved state action by the City of Jamestown, as owner of the property.

Having concluded that the restrictions on expressive activity by the mall constituted state action, we turn to the second part of our analysis to determine the nature of the forum involved and the scope of the appellants' rights of free speech and peaceable assembly under the circumstances.

The federal constitution does not require the government to freely grant access to all who wish to exercise free speech on every type of government property, without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that might be caused by the speaker's activities. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985). The high court has adopted a forum analysis as a means of balancing the government's interest in limiting the use of its property to its intended

Page 837

purpose and the interest of those wishing to use the property for expressive activity and other purposes.
This forum analysis was nicely explained by Justice O'Connor in Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 572-573, 107 S.Ct. 2568 2571, 96 L.Ed.2d 500, 506 (1987):

"In balancing the government's interest in limiting the use of its property against the interests of those who wish to use the property for expressive activity, the Court has identified three types of fora: the traditional public forum, the public forum created by government designation, and the nonpublic forum. Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45-46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 954-955, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). The proper First Amendment analysis differs depending on whether the area in question falls in one category rather than another. In a traditional public forum or a public forum by government designation, we have held that First Amendment protections are subject to heightened scrutiny:

" 'In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.... The State may also enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.' Id., at 45, 103 S.Ct., at 955.

"We have further held, however, that access to a nonpublic forum may be restricted by government regulation as long as the regulation 'is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because officials oppose the speaker's view.' Id., at 46, 103 S.Ct., at 955."

See also, United States v. Kokinda, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 3115, 111 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990).

Examples of public fora are public streets and parks which have traditionally been devoted to public assembly and debate. Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). Public places similar to the common areas of the shopping mall in this case also have been found to be public fora. For example, in Wolin v. Port of New York Authority, 392 F.2d 83, 90 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 940, 89 S.Ct. 290, 21 L.Ed.2d 275 (1968), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the municipal bus terminal operated by the Port of New York Authority was a public forum conducive to the public communication of views on issues of political and social significance:

"The Terminal building is an appropriate place for expressing one's views precisely because the primary activity for which it is designed is attended with noisy crowds and vehicles, some unrest and less than perfect order. Like a covered marketplace area, the congestion justifies rules regulating other forms of activity, but it seems undeniable that the place should be available for use in appropriate ways as a public forum. The admission of charity solicitors, glee clubs and automobile exhibitions without untoward incident evidences the ease with which the Terminal accommodates different forms of communication. To deny access to political communication seems an anomalous inversion of our fundamental values."

Not unlike the bus terminal in Wolin, supra, the common walkways and public areas of the modern-day mall, like the Jamestown Mall, lend themselves to expressive activity of the public. These malls offer concourses that are wide, well lit and able to accommodate large numbers of the public at one time. They are complete with restrooms, sitting areas and fountains. They often include display areas for entertainers, exhibitors and others to perform for the public at large. In essence, they are the functional equivalent of the city

Page 838

streets, squares and parks of earlier days. Indeed, in many instances, the shopping mall has displaced the shops along main street. With its controlled environment, it is an appealing place for the public to converse and socialize as well as to browse and shop in and about the stores there.
In many ways, the common walkways of a shopping mall are indistinguishable from the concourse of the St. Louis airport facility found to be a public forum in Jamison v. City of St. Louis, 828 F.2d 1280, 1283 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 987, 108 S.Ct. 1289, 99 L.Ed.2d 499 (1988):

"We agree with these courts and with the City's implicit acknowledgment that the concourse of a large airport facility like the one in St. Louis has the character, pattern of activity, and nature of purpose that make it an appropriate place for the communication of views.... As has been noted, an airport terminal is much like a busy city street. Both are lined by shops, restaurants, newsstands, and other businesses, with travelers or other members of the general public coming and going as they please."

See also Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F.2d 619 (5th Cir.1981) (Dallas-Ft. Worth airport terminal constituted a public forum in which efforts to regulate speech were subject to First Amendment free speech guarantees).

We hold that the common area walkways of the Jamestown Mall constitute a public forum and that attempted regulation of expressive activity in these areas must comport with the First Amendment. The mall authorities may regulate the time, place and manner of expression in the mall. However, the regulations must be reasonable, content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and must leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Perry Education, supra.

The regulation of expression by the mall authorities in this case does not fall within the First Amendment limits for restricting expressive activity in a public forum. The posted notice at the Jamestown Mall states that anything which might be classified as "expressive activity" will not be permitted. The mall authorities enforced that notice by refusing to allow the appellants to peacefully protest in the common areas of the mall. Concluding that similar language was facially overbroad and in violation of the First Amendment, the United States Supreme Court in Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., supra, 482 U.S. at 575, 107 S.Ct. at 2572, 96 L.Ed.2d at 508, stated that "no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech." This all-encompassing ban on expressive activity by the Jamestown Mall is legally indistinguishable from the facially invalid resolution in Jews for Jesus, Inc., Id.

We hold that the appellants' trespass convictions constituted an infringement of their First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. For that reason, the judgments of conviction are reversed.

ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VANDE WALLE, GIERKE and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.

---------------

1 The appellants were convicted of violating Section 22-46 of the Code of the City of Jamestown, North Dakota, which provides:

"A person is guilty of an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by actual communication to the actor by the person in charge of the premises or other authorized person, or by posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of the intruders."

2 In the subsequent case of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980), the high court, while implicitly recognizing that there is no federal constitutional right of free speech in a privately owned shopping mall, held that a state, in the exercise of its police powers, is not precluded from finding such a right under its state constitution. Although the appellants have asserted, in the alternative, a free speech right under our state constitution, we first proceed with their claim of a free speech guarantee under the First Amendment.
Submit
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 909
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 12:06:55 PM
(copied and pasted by me from one of my posts above..near 615)

Clearly, then, if the refusal to participate in the ceremony attendant upon the singing or playing of the National Anthem had not occurred in a public-school classroom, but in some other public or private place, there would be not the slightest doubt that the plaintiffs were free to participate or not as they choose. Every citizen is free to stand or sit, sing or remain silent, when the Star Spangled Banner is played.



Furthermore, the recent case of Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961) has made it clear that only the most tenuous connection of the defendant with the State is necessary to constitute "State action" within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343(3). The Supreme Court there held, relying on United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941) and Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945), that the phrase "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State



Our forebears realized that ideas for preservation and improvement of a free society must come, not from the government, but from the people, and must compete for acceptance by the people, just as goods and services compete for acceptance in our free-enterprise economy. They realized too that in order to compete for acceptance, these ideas must be freely expressed by act and deed; that only in this way can the truth prevail; that only in this way can an idea despised today win the acceptance of reason tomorrow, or be thoroughly discredited; and that only by protecting the freedom of the smallest minority to express unpopular ideas by word or deed can the majority insure freedom to believe and express its own ideas, and to dispute and criticize those of others. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 22, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes J., dissenting).


Sheldon v. Fannin, 221 F.Supp. 766 (D. Ariz., 1963)

So what do we know about ball parks...beyond the fact they are always supported by tax dollars....... there are also plenty of State supported actors in getting people to the Ball Park...such as Traffic Officers, State supported subways, state supported Highways. My guess...although it has never been specifically tested in the context we are talking about that there is no possibility patrons of even a supposedly "private" ball park ...could be compelled to stand for the anthem. Such a rule would fly in the face of Freedom of Expression, and there is no more peaceful freedom of expression... than sitting or kneeling during the National Anthem. So Flick, you asked that I prove you wrong... I have done so. I enjoyed this exercise though..........I found the subject interesting.
Submit
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 910
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 12:10:51 PM
This is the bottom line as I see it... the NFL does not have the legal means to enforce a non kneeling rule during the playing of the National Anthem. I think their only real choice is to keep the entire team in the locker room until the anthem is done...if they try to tell somebody they cannot go out to the field unless they are willing to stand for the anthem, my guess is the NFL will lose in Court. the First Amendment is the one area where the Courts seem to bend over backwards to enforce the rights of individuals.

So really what else is there to say? Everybody is entitled to their own opinion about whether it is proper to kneel during the national anthem or not by an employee of the NFL... but legally, I don't believe the NFL can do anything about it. It might try..but it will likely lose if anybody challenges it in Court. Why should an employee of a government agency not be allowed to quietly and respectfully kneel during the National Anthem...the government has no right to prohibit Free speech, and the NFL for our purposes is a government employer as I read the law.

Even Seagull should be entitled to her own opinion in this case...but she may want to check with Lying Jovan first to make sure he approves :-)

Hope that helps Cham
 MachIMustangII
Joined: 2/16/2018
Msg: 911
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 12:45:46 PM
"nobody likes everyone"

>>Except perhaps Will Rogers, and he's dead :) But I was just stating the obvious--chances are, people who are my fans, share my beliefs/opinions/views, and those who come out of the shadows attempting to point out my faults, are on the opposite side the political fence than I stand.

I get the bit about kindness and loyalty. Funny how when we were kids, we were all told "a little kindness goes a long way" and we never really got that b/c we were too young to notice anything so subtle...but now we're older and we recognize the little things in life and cherish them. I'll bet we've all had one day when we come here in a mood to be pleasant, and instead see someone re-hashing old ideology that has been explained before (who pays for a date is classic), and we realize that long argument we had a month ago and the other person agreed to our point...has to be done all over again. Or maybe we just had a bad day, and came here to unleash.

as for the NFL...once Obama as a young president, stuck his nose into a local issue that had nothing to do with him. He realized using the Bully Pulpit to comment as a private citizen wasn't right, and corrected it. It would be great if Chump could show such professionalism, since he and Melania have copied the Obamas on other situations. He can find better raw meat distractions to throw his supporters.
 47Seagulls
Joined: 3/16/2018
Msg: 912
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 1:32:20 PM

Why? It seems most adults on here can control themselves without forming unhealthy fantasy relationships. Not everyone on here has a fixation on someone like you do with KJ. The rest of us seem to be adults and can form critical adult thinking regarding posters on here. Is this because of your juvenile, high school mentality? As for critical thinking - I can't help thinking about your life and this fascination with the forums and the people. Apparently, your life is not fulfilling. That's actually sad and pathetic.


Again - this is worth repeating for the high school students that hang out and aren't mature enough to stop ranting.

And I'm not going to the Israel thread - I don't have a dog in the fight and don't give a shyt. You are both crazy as far as I'm concerned, both are immature and both have need to be right. Its your pissing contest with Jo Van - have at it Sweetheart. And did you check with KJ before you posted, apparently she has you by the short and curlies. Pathetic.

Go back to fantasizing about KJ and get on with your pathetic little unfulfilled life. You have the forums, a spat with a fellow crazy person, a fantasy like with a blonde and an unfulfilled life.....or why bother? Why is this so important to you? Why the need to be "right"? Is your self esteem THAT low? Really....same level as Trump, narcissist and low self esteem, small hands...you know the rest. Probably Mommy issues.

I asked a question awhile back, I'll have to wait until someone knowledgeable and experienced knows the answer- would this ruling by the NFL regarding telling players they can't kneel during the anthem - would this hold up in court?
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 913
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 1:40:37 PM

But I was just stating the obvious--chances are, people who are my fans, share my beliefs/opinions/views, and those who come out of the shadows attempting to point out my faults, are on the opposite side the political fence than I stand.


Well that is not an ironclad rule....I really have no issue with people who have different political viewpoints than myself... so long as they don't have a problem about my viewpoints....and so long as the basis for their viewpoints is intelligently expressed....it goes without saying I have no respect for people who blindly buy into the conspiracy theories...I respect intelligence not ignorance. My very best friend is a Trump supporter....he is also very highly intelligent...he just sees real problems with our government up to now, the Iraqi debacle etc., and thought anything was better than what we had. I suspect KJ felt the same way but never got the opportunity to express her opinions because the leftist trash jumped all over her and the blond bimbo deleted her profile.

The only area I will not tolerate...something that is so prevalent with the Trash on the Left is a simplistic anti Israel stance without any attempt to understand the complexity of the situation, the merits of the positions of both sides....part of the problem is the Trash on the left is so fuking stupid and so misinformed, I just can't stand it. Just like so many get upset here with the incredibly ignorant positions at times by those on the right, or those who just buy into the Conspiracy theories put forth by Trump with no evidence. It is pretty obvious why I despise Lying Jovan...because he intentionally deceives and manipulates, or Cotter...who I believe simply was not intelligent enough to get the Israeli position (Jovan is intelligent enough)...or especially somebody like my latest enemy who just buys into the crap from lying Jovan without any Critical analysis....very, very disappointing.

So in the end, its not so much whether somebody agrees with me or not.. it is how they express their opinions and whether their opinions seem to be based on sound principals and logic....there is far, far too little of that in the political arena it seems, whether on this board or on Facebook or any other message board for that matter.

KJ and you got into it....but just remember how she was attacked by the leftists when she was here...she became very defensive. I don't think she was used to being attacked like that. I on the other hand am well acquainted with the give and take on a message board...course that does not mean I don't get angry...doesn't mean I will respect somebody like Jovan in the least..on the other hand... I won't lose sleep over anybody here.
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 914
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 2:08:09 PM

again - this is worth repeating for the high school students that hang out and aren't mature enough to stop ranting. blah blah blah


All I can say is you have become a very sad version of yourself....but you have to live with you not me, so I won't lose a lot of sleep over it. :-)

Fantasizing about KJ......LOL...well let me put it this way..... if I were not married . . . she would certainly be a consideration for a relationship... she is intelligent, kind, pretty, at least in real life...she has all of the minimum mandatory qualities for any woman whom I would consider a relationship with. Of course not being available myself, I never considered her in those terms... I just liked her from a friendship point of view. I know being a woman, that is the last thing you like to hear from a guy.. We know how petty some of you are, how jealous you get at woman whom you perceive as being more attractive than you are or who have more success with men as compared to your own success or lack thereof.

Sorry for you Seagull....I know you never had a legitimate reason for not liking KJ.. Life is tough and not fair...all we can do is accept what we have and what we don't have and go on...but really you need to get over that illogical anger you have at KJ, its really not very becoming of you.

Oh by the way...you question about whether the NFL could enforce the standing edict....try to find a friend with critical thinking skills...have him or her read the legal verbiage I posted above, and they may be able to provide you with a reasoned answer.
 47Seagulls
Joined: 3/16/2018
Msg: 915
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 2:22:59 PM

Go back to fantasizing about KJ and get on with your pathetic little unfulfilled life. You have the forums, a spat with a fellow crazy person, a fantasy like with a blonde and an unfulfilled life.....or why bother? Why is this so important to you? Why the need to be "right"? Is your self esteem THAT low? Really....same level as Trump, narcissist and low self esteem, small hands...you know the rest. Probably Mommy issues.


This needs repeating too.

And I liked KJ. I didn't like how she posted as a dumb blonde. That's on her, not me or anyone on this site that may have "picked" on her and poor thing, she wasn't ready for that.....OMG.

You would think that someone that has a wife and a life would not spend his days camped out here ready to pounce on anyone who either disagrees with him or says a nasty, or perceived as nasty, word against Israel. Again, its pathetic how you fight to stay on here. And if someone agrees with Jo Van or Mach, or any man on here for that matter, we are to conclude then that you are jealous? Because I disagreed with KJ, I'm jealous of her? I didn't agree with Cotter's views....was I jealous of her? I didn't agree with Dee's views....was I jealous of her? I agree with most of Cham's views...I'm in love with her? I agree with everything Wooby says....I'm in love with her? Geezus.

My saying you fantasize about KJ is just as stupid, in fact stupider, than you thinking I have something going on with Jo Van. To quote another person I used to know on here - "what a maroon".

You took a simple little thing like me not agreeing with circumcision and made a mountain out of fck all. That shows your maturity level.

Would you have fought this much if we were discussing abortion or gay marriage or the transgendered or breast feeding or the term "feckless cvnt" or football players taking a knee?

As for the legal on taking a knee, I'll hold out and research it or ask someone who is actually knowledgeable, experienced and who's opinion I value. I haven't found that here. Anyone can copy and paste what THEY deem is true and fact.
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 916
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 2:29:45 PM
^^^ Unfortunately, my life requires me to be deskbound much of the time... Based on my experience, I can get a lot of work done in small amounts of time...but I still need to deal with tons of paperwork and email...its the path I chose. So here I am at my office working...but still finding the time to pop in and respond. thanks for asking though.

You can hold out all you want on the knee issue....but I would have thought, based on your experience, that you would know nobody could give you a definitive answer because nobody ever knows for sure how a court is going to rule do they? How sad that you expect any more than that.
Anyway, I get you are trying to insult...I'm just laughing at how silly you have become....again... I won't be losing any sleep.

Shame you don't get the circumcision thing though...your total lack of sensitivity and awareness is on you...but of course you are trying to pass your deficits off on me...just more to be sad about with you.

Understand something... I really don't care about your opinion on these issues now...since we are no long friendly, ..its just I refuse to be associated with or friends with somebody who has that little sensitivity, common sense or awareness and then, when advised of her failings... rather than apologize or at least shut up about it...doubles down and then triples down and then allows herself to be manipulated by leftist trash and quadruples down. You showed to me a very unpleasant aspect of your personality, a complete lack of sensitivity and/or awareness about other people in your sphere and something you really need to work on.. You talk about KJ... do you think KJ could ever have been that insensitive or if she was advised that she was, not quickly recognizing her failures and trying to correct it? That's the big difference I see between her and you.

And I got tell you...your respect for a man like Lying Jovan... I can't help have less respect for you because of it. How can you not see him for the piece of crap he is... forget Israel or the jews... a man who demands that people give up their belief in God...who believes believes are "mentally ill". How can you like or respect a man like that Seagull? I tolerated your fawning all over him...but your complete insensitivity on the circumcision issue...your inability to see your failings to this time...unfortunately says things about you that I finally had to recognize and not overlook. You can try to put this on me...but its all on you...unfortunately I really don't think you are capable of getting that... and that really is sad. I mean, I don't give a damn about your opinions on circumcision in the end...other than they provide me information by which I have judged you...and you didn't come out on top in that judgment. Those are just the facts...
 47Seagulls
Joined: 3/16/2018
Msg: 917
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 2:43:47 PM

Anyway, I get you are trying to insult...I'm just laughing at how silly you have become....again... I won;t be losing any sleep.


Oh my, look in the mirror at what you've become. A life unfulfilled and pathetic. Put that in your yearbook from whatever university you attended - " _____ showed promise, decent career path, married well, yet a life unfulfilled and resorted to posting for years on end on a forum arguing with all he found "beneath" him until he became what he, at one time, scoffed, sneered and laughed at."

None of this is ever worth losing sleep over.

I'm done. I don't need to justify my opinions to anyone.
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 918
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 2:49:28 PM

A life unfulfilled and pathetic.


Honestly...this just tells me you have some mental issues...... maybe depression...getting older...nobody loves you? Invisible to the world? Is that the problem? I wish I could say I feel bad for you... but I don't. You are what you are and you are accountable for the way you act and the way you treat people.
 47Seagulls
Joined: 3/16/2018
Msg: 919
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 2:53:42 PM

Honestly...this just tells me you have some mental issues...... maybe depression...getting older...nobody loves you? Invisible to the world? Is that the problem? I wish I could say I feel bad for you... but I don't. You are what you are and you are accountable for the way you act and the way you treat people.


OMFG , look in the mirror. Look in the friggin mirror you sad and sorry thing. You can't even hold your own against someone like Jo Van or half the folks posting on here.
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 920
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 2:57:28 PM
^^^ when I look in the mirror...I'm pretty happy for an old guy like me....granted not like I am still twenty....but in my age range... if I were available.... I'm pretty sure I could have almost any available woman I wanted (my age range being up to ten years younger)...sorry if that means I am being arrogant...but you asked me to look in the mirror so I did. :-). You are going to have to come up with better insults there Seagull...you are running out of them it seems...you questioned the size of my hands...whether I feel "fulfilled" in my life, my "infatuation" with KJ..... boy you are a real sweetheart...what a catch you are for any guy out there looking. Don't forget...Jovan is still available.
 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 921
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 3:02:17 PM
this has been fun Seagull...but I have to get going... I have some partying to do tonight with real friends... I'm pretty sure we aren't going to be talking about circumcision though...... I'll have to leave that discussion with you though.

I still have more work to do tomorrow at the office...so I likely will be back...or maybe not...we'll see.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 922
view profile
History
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 5:04:20 PM

You do know that not all black players want to protest? Are they full of shit too? I'm in good company with my black quarterback that wants to be on the field, hand over heart.

Huh??
 MachIMustangII
Joined: 2/16/2018
Msg: 923
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 5:29:58 PM
"I have no issue with people who have different political viewpoints...as long as the basis is intelligently expressed...no respect for blind or knee-jerk acceptance..."

>>>you and me both.

"trump supporters see real problem with our government up to now, like Iraq, etc"

>>>pretty damned late, frankly. Liberals warned them of global treaties a long while back, and the same supporters who see a problem with Iraq, were the same ones cheerleading it and telling liberals against the war that they hated America, that they were with the terrorists, that French fries were Freedom Fries, and other playground childishness--but now there was an enemies list, no fly list, more surveillance, etc under Bush. Where were all the anti-Establishment types, in the Bush era? They were fully with the Establishment, during Occupy Wall Street and other attempts by liberals to wake them up.

So yes, its easy to feel we were "awoke" a long time back, and figure out its b/c we're far smarter to see what's what. Trump supporters have a problem, they don't want to restraint the system that creates the Establishment (and now Chump wants to relax bank restrictions put in after last Bush recession, that should worry them, too). Worse? The same neo cons who created Iraq, are now the ones Chump is hiring to wage another Iraq in Iran. I'd respect the first Trumpanzee who has the fuzzy balls to actually admit they are concerned, too. If they like conspiracy theories, they can look up PNAC. Until then, liberals can keep warning them and a decade from now, Trumpanzees will sound like liberals.

Typically, however, when anyone gets attacked here, its b/c they stirred up the pot. Neither side picks on a poster for nothing.

"it goes without saying I have no respect for people who blindly buy into the conspiracy theories...I respect intelligence not ignorance."

>>>that's exactly how it happens. We are a meritocracy here. we all reveal either an intelligence or a bias when we post in this forum. We are opening the can of worms. We may be challenged on our post, and we have an opportunity for rebuttal. or we can walk away. But you are right--ignorance, blind loyalty, emotional irrationality, pandering, none of it earns much merit.

it is a pity working class conservatives didn't listen to liberals in the decades before siding with the Establishment to get rid of unions, banking regulations from the Savings and Loan crisis, etc--all to save that Establishment they finally woke up and opened their eyes to. Formally in bed, they finally want to break up. They forget, that union paycheck, those benefits they wish they could have back if only jobs remained here....they wouldn't have a damned one of them, if it wasn't for socialists and labor unions striking on their behalf way back in the beginning of the 1900's.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2014/09/01/the-real-reasons-why-we-celebrate-labor-day/#55d6e87b23e9

now we have another group, in football, wanting to demonstrate in order to get attention to their cause. Maybe instead of saying, "how do we kill the messanger?" maybe we can solve our problem, by trying to solve their's...or at least trying. that would be a sign of intelligence.


 ghostata
Joined: 3/29/2018
Msg: 924
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/2/2018 8:36:56 PM
This is ridiculous....over and out.

order to maintain the highest quality forums you are restricted to having no more then 2 of the last 10 posts on a thread.
Since 2 of the last 10 posts are yours you can not post to this thread.
 Llove2LaughToo
Joined: 4/14/2018
Msg: 925
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 6/4/2018 6:47:17 PM
The majority of the players of the Superbowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles refused to attend tomorrow's White House Super Bowl "celebration". What does Cadet Bone Spurs does? He throws a Toddler-In-Chief tantrum and revokes the invitation to save himself the humiliation of people seeing how few players would have shown up to the White House.

#VoteRepublicansOut2018
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem