Publicly speaking in defense of our rights

EMNofSeattle · Nov 10, 2012

So today was the final day of Olympic College (a community college I attend in Bremerton, Washington)'s "First Amendment Forum" This is slightly off topic, but still relevant to us (IMHO) and is somewhat state specific.

Scroll down to the final paragraph if you want to skip the background and go straight to the point, but I encourage you to read the whole deal.

Basically in 2007 an anti-abortion group showed up on OC's main campus in Bremerton, they carry these signs with graphic anti abortion images and messages (I'll inbed one here *Warning, Graphic* well this caused quite a stir on campus, and led to the campus severely restricting free speech, however after the group threatened a lawsuit and after winning a "Schrammie" from Ken Schram, the College reversed because they're a public campus and now allow free speech on the grounds of the campus. Well after a couple years they stopped coming, then came back last month, and it caused such a stir that the Campus Multi-Cultural club put on a weeks worth of meetings in the conference room open to all students and members of the public, these public forums hosted a guest pane of speakers including Security Director Ed Call and Journalism Professor Mike Prince and some other campus big wig whose name I can't remember. The purpose was to inform students about these people's first amendment right to protest abortion and to explain the first amendment to college students and to have a discussion, this was moderated by the student president of the Multicultural club and audience members would ask questions or make comments for the panel to respond.

Well after Professor Prince explained the SCOTUS Miller Test to determine obscenity and that obscenity was not protected speech (Miller v. California), so a bunch of students began asking why the college couldn't ban the anti-abortion images as Obscenity. So I got up and explained that the Miller test only applied under the 1st amendment, I then cited State v. Henry a case in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that obscenity was protected by the Oregon Constitution and that Washington's Article 1 Section 5 constitutional protections were worded very closely to Oregon's. I then concluded that obscenity might have a looser definition then in Washington. THAT opened a nasty can of worms, after being talked condescendingly to by Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight" Well I showed up a second day and made the same argument when Ed Call wasn't on the panel to a better reception.

Anyway THE POINT IN ALL THIS IS after the end of todays Forum the president of the Multicultural club said due to the success of the first amendment forums (hundreds of students came to the forum days) They were thinking about having another forum on other constitutional rights, he said he was specifically looking to discuss the 2nd and 4th amendments, and asked If I might be interested in Sitting on the panel! Anyway I don't know when or if it will even happen, but what do you think? Should I accept such an offer? and if yes, and I actually am allowed to be seated, will someone here mind reviewing any notes I make to be ready... like I said this is tentative, nothing is scheduled and it may not happen. but still the idea is fun to me...

911Grunt · Nov 10, 2012

go for it! :banana::monkey

Jack House · Nov 10, 2012

I definitely think you should go for it.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

skidmark · Nov 10, 2012

If not you, then who?

You generally know what you are talking about, which seems to put you a notch or two above Security Director Call.

You seem to have been able to make your point and pass on what might have been otherwise boring information without getting shut down by the panel or heckled off the mic by the audience. Amazing feat, all things considered.

From your posts I do not get the impression that you have any axe to grind. (Standing up against those actively seeking to take away rights is not grinding an axe.)

stay safe.

MSG Laigaie · Nov 10, 2012

skidmark said:
If not you, then who?

The Complacent American sits and watches as life goes by, then complains about the status of the world. A Citizen will actively seek for Citizenship is a verb. You may have an opportunity to educate others in a positive way.

tombrewster421 · Nov 10, 2012

I say congratulations and try to push another for the fifth amendment also. One far too many don't know how to take advantage of.

hermannr · Nov 10, 2012

Consider this a great opportunity if it does happen...and remember the WA constitution Article 1 Section 7, and Article 1 section 24, absolutely apply to our state, no matter what someone else might think...have WA appeals and supreme court decisions ready to back yourself up.

You might remind your WA constitution distractor that our BoR can be MORE restrictive on government, but not less, and it is also very relevant.

For the 2nd amendment arguments, and state constitution applicability arguments, you might like to pocket the Idaho state supreme court decision...in re Brickly, 1902, http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html. This is Idaho, but you can use it to show, that state supreme court decisions apply to that particular state, based on that particular state's constitution and laws. BTW: Idaho is/was and will continue to be, and traditional OC state...no matter what the US Supreme Court thinks/says, as will WA state based on Article 1 Section 7.

Good state constitutional power arguments can be made on the WA prohibition on road block stops of automobiles for license and DUI checks. US Supreme court decisions (Prouse V Delaware) state that Random stops for license checks are illegal, but roadblock stops (like for DUI checks) are not. Our state Supreme court threw out a law that allowed the WSP to do roadblock license/DUI check stops based on Article 1 Section 7 of our WA state constitution. (sorry I don't have the case. maybe Rapgood might??? This was quite a few years ago.)

Go for it, prepare for it, and good luck!

Freedom1Man · Nov 10, 2012

Go for it, I am sure that many forums members would not mind helping review your notes.

Boomboy007 · Nov 11, 2012

Take that ball and RUN!

Do us proud, EMN!

Trigger Dr · Nov 11, 2012

EMN there are t things that you must be very clear on when you speak
1. Have ALL of your facts
2. DO NOT represent OCDO unless you have been vetted by the owners of this forum.
You represent yourself and (fortunately or unfortunately) as the case may be, by association, all the rest of the oc community.
Be careful of what you say.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 11, 2012

Trigger Dr said:
EMN there are t things that you must be very clear on when you speak
1. Have ALL of your facts
2. DO NOT represent OCDO unless you have been vetted by the owners of this forum.
You represent yourself and (fortunately or unfortunately) as the case may be, by association, all the rest of the oc community.
Be careful of what you say.

No I wouldn't bring up being a forum member or claim to speak for an OC community, I was only wondering if this does happen which there's a fair chance it may not, if people here wouldn't mind vetting any information I would use as sources. I would never claim to represent this forum or it's members in anyway. That annoys me when people claim to represent me that I never told or asked to...

Citizen · Nov 11, 2012

Go for it.

Learn the tactics of the anti-rights crowd. And, learn the arguments.

For example, the anti-abortion argument worked out. But, it was a little bit of luck that state case law was on your side. You want to persuade people, to shift their thinking. Winning by having the bigger hammer in the form of winning case law is not persuasion. Just because lots of people attended doesn't mean it was successful--unless attendance is the end goal. Success is persuading people to the side of liberty.

You probably have the 2nd Amendment arguments down pretty well. The Fourth Amendment could be a loser if you let yourself be drawn into a case law argument by advocates for strong government. Especially if there are any stong-government law students in the crowd or on the panel. The courts have been chipping away at the 4A for decades. You want to educate yourself fast on the history and fundamental premises of the 4A to undercut that stuff.

LkWd_Don · Nov 11, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
So today was the final day of Olympic College (a community college I attend in Bremerton, Washington)'s "First Amendment Forum" This is slightly off topic, but still relevant to us (IMHO) and is somewhat state specific.

Scroll down to the final paragraph if you want to skip the background and go straight to the point, but I encourage you to read the whole deal.

Basically in 2007 an anti-abortion group showed up on OC's main campus in Bremerton, they carry these signs with graphic anti abortion images and messages (I'll inbed one here *Warning, Graphic* well this caused quite a stir on campus, and led to the campus severely restricting free speech, however after the group threatened a lawsuit and after winning a "Schrammie" from Ken Schram, the College reversed because they're a public campus and now allow free speech on the grounds of the campus. Well after a couple years they stopped coming, then came back last month, and it caused such a stir that the Campus Multi-Cultural club put on a weeks worth of meetings in the conference room open to all students and members of the public, these public forums hosted a guest pane of speakers including Security Director Ed Call and Journalism Professor Mike Prince and some other campus big wig whose name I can't remember. The purpose was to inform students about these people's first amendment right to protest abortion and to explain the first amendment to college students and to have a discussion, this was moderated by the student president of the Multicultural club and audience members would ask questions or make comments for the panel to respond.

Well after Professor Prince explained the SCOTUS Miller Test to determine obscenity and that obscenity was not protected speech (Miller v. California), so a bunch of students began asking why the college couldn't ban the anti-abortion images as Obscenity. So I got up and explained that the Miller test only applied under the 1st amendment, I then cited State v. Henry a case in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that obscenity was protected by the Oregon Constitution and that Washington's Article 1 Section 5 constitutional protections were worded very closely to Oregon's. I then concluded that obscenity might have a looser definition then in Washington. THAT opened a nasty can of worms, after being talked condescendingly to by Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight" Well I showed up a second day and made the same argument when Ed Call wasn't on the panel to a better reception.

Anyway THE POINT IN ALL THIS IS after the end of todays Forum the president of the Multicultural club said due to the success of the first amendment forums (hundreds of students came to the forum days) They were thinking about having another forum on other constitutional rights, he said he was specifically looking to discuss the 2nd and 4th amendments, and asked If I might be interested in Sitting on the panel! Anyway I don't know when or if it will even happen, but what do you think? Should I accept such an offer? and if yes, and I actually am allowed to be seated, will someone here mind reviewing any notes I make to be ready... like I said this is tentative, nothing is scheduled and it may not happen. but still the idea is fun to me...

I say go for it.

Please let me know if they are ever going to hold one on the 9th and 10th Amendments. After reading

Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight"

I think those would be interesting to observe and see just how Socialist er Security Director Call responds to them.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

MSG Laigaie · Nov 11, 2012

You shold be preparing you lecture now. If you do not use it on this occasion you will use it in the next. You seem like a proactive kind of guy. Get your argument down, get a tutor from the debate club. Get verbally armed and ready for combat. Be cool, do not get excited and be accurate. That is always a death note for your argument.

Difdi · Nov 11, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
THAT opened a nasty can of worms, after being talked condescendingly to by Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight"

The federal constitution only steps into the matter (via the 14th amendment) when a state has less protection of a given right than the federal constitution does. If a state has greater protection, then the 14th amendment does not care. After all, there is no protected right under the federal constitution to censor someone else's freedom of expression, therefore the feds won't step in under the 14th amendment to protect a college's "right" to censor someone.

At what point does a municipal corporation or other quasi-government body effectively step across the legal line and attempt to secede from the state?

EMNofSeattle · Nov 12, 2012

Difdi said:
The federal constitution only steps into the matter (via the 14th amendment) when a state has less protection of a given right than the federal constitution does. If a state has greater protection, then the 14th amendment does not care. After all, there is no protected right under the federal constitution to censor someone else's freedom of expression, therefore the feds won't step in under the 14th amendment to protect a college's "right" to censor someone.

At what point does a municipal corporation or other quasi-government body effectively step across the legal line and attempt to secede from the state?

That's an interesting point, I wonder how that would work with grand juries, If I'm indicted by a judge as is done in WA, can i challenge the indictment on the grounds that a judge indictment is less protective then a grand jury? hmmmm

Difdi · Nov 12, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
That's an interesting point, I wonder how that would work with grand juries, If I'm indicted by a judge as is done in WA, can i challenge the indictment on the grounds that a judge indictment is less protective then a grand jury? hmmmm

I bet that security director might try it. After all, state laws don't exist because we have federal supremacy.

rapgood · Nov 12, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
So today was the final day of Olympic College (a community college I attend in Bremerton, Washington)'s "First Amendment Forum" This is slightly off topic, but still relevant to us (IMHO) and is somewhat state specific.

I then concluded that obscenity might have a looser definition then in Washington. THAT opened a nasty can of worms, after being talked condescendingly to by Security Director Call about how the WA state constitution doesn't matter because the "Federal Constitution is the law of the land and thus the state constitution holds no weight" Well I showed up a second day and made the same argument when Ed Call wasn't on the panel to a better reception.

And he's responsible for security? What planet is this guy living on?

EMNofSeattle said:
That's an interesting point, I wonder how that would work with grand juries, If I'm indicted by a judge as is done in WA, can i challenge the indictment on the grounds that a judge indictment is less protective then a grand jury? hmmmm

Close. Actually, judges don't indict in Washington. That would be beyond their authority. Complaints and Informations are brought by a prosecuting attorney. Indictments are made by grand juries and grand juries in Washington are formed only when voted for and called by a majority of judges in that jurisdiction. This is very rare in Washington (I've never seen one). And, although it's the judges who vote to call for the formation of a grand jury, it is the grand jury that hands down indictments; not the judges.

That said, grand juries are routinely called for duty in federal courts. There, we see them all the time.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 12, 2012

rapgood said:
And he's responsible for security? What planet is this guy living on?.

Well his spiel also involved him saying that state law cannot be less restrictive then federal, only more restrictive, and that cities could be more restrictive then state law but not less.

Which is a vast (and inaccurate) simplification of how it actually works, well at least to the best my knowledge. the way I understand it, State constitutional protections can be more restrictive on government then the federal constitution at least involving how that states officers conduct themselves. for instance the saga of Sitz v. Michigan showed that the federal courts can rule that an action doesn't violate the federal constitution, but when remanded a state court can still rule their state constitution is more protective. and with statutory law Printz v. US and New York v. US the supreme court ruled that the federal government cannot mandate state and local officials to enforce federal law. so I presume state law can be less restrictive but with the understanding adherence to state law is not a defense in federal court.

This was the exact argument I made to counter that claim.

Do you believe I was wrong in any of that?

Boomboy007 · Nov 13, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
Well his spiel also involved him saying that state law cannot be less restrictive then federal, only more restrictive, and that cities could be more restrictive then state law but not less.

Which is a vast (and inaccurate) simplification of how it actually works, well at least to the best my knowledge. the way I understand it, State constitutional protections can be more restrictive on government then the federal constitution at least involving how that states officers conduct themselves. for instance the saga of Sitz v. Michigan showed that the federal courts can rule that an action doesn't violate the federal constitution, but when remanded a state court can still rule their state constitution is more protective. and with statutory law Printz v. US and New York v. US the supreme court ruled that the federal government cannot mandate state and local officials to enforce federal law. so I presume state law can be less restrictive but with the understanding adherence to state law is not a defense in federal court.

This was the exact argument I made to counter that claim.

Do you believe I was wrong in any of that?

Well, our recent ballot initiative that passed regarding the adult recreational use of marijuana is a perfect example of state law being less restrictive than federal law. While it may be against federal law, without state LEO to enforce it, the Feds are pretty much screwed. They just don't have the numbers of officers required to effectively enforce that law in one state, much less 5, 10, or 50.

Publicly speaking in defense of our rights

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member