Ga. Legislature shows little regard for free speech

Georgia Republicans like to talk about honoring and protecting the U.S. Constitution. But they are about to pass a law that blatantly violates one of its most important protections, the freedom of speech.

I’m not a fan of picketing or demonstrations at private residences; as a matter of policy and decency, family homes ought to be off-limits. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Frisby v. Schultz, agreed, with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor writing the majority opinion upholding a ban on demonstrations enacted by Brookfield, Wisc.:

“The type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident, and to do so in an especially offensive way. Moreover, even if some such picketers have a broader communicative purpose, their activity nonetheless inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy. The devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt.”

The core of O’Connor’s argument was that picketing and demonstrations targeting a private home are less expressions of speech than they are attempts to harass and intimidate. I think that’s right.

However, Senate Bill 469 is a very different animal. Sponsored by state Sen. Don Balfour, R-Gwinnett, the bill attempts to use O’Connor’s argument to justify a limited ban on picketing of private homes that “interfere(s) with the resident’s right of peaceful quiet enjoyment.” It’s that “limited” part that so clearly violates the Constitution.

Under SB 469, you see, the only people or groups that are banned from protesting outside private residences in Georgia are labor unions and union members.

As the bill’s sponsors have made very clear, SB 469 would still allow anti-abortion protesters to demonstrate outside the home of a physician or hospital executive. Environmental groups would still be able to protest outside the homes of company executives. Church groups could still protest outside the homes of strip-club operators.

Labor unions — and only labor unions — would be prevented from expressing their opinions in such a manner. And only company executives who might be targeted by such protests would be protected by the law. Everybody else is on their own.

Because that provision so blatantly discriminates against a particular point of view and against a particular group of people, it is also blatantly unconstitutional.

This is not an arcane point of constitutional law. It is not a close call. Georgia legislators know that what they’re about to pass violates the right to free speech, but they don’t seem to care much.

The bill has already passed the Senate. This morning, in a surprise 9 a.m. committee meeting that wasn’t publicly announced until after 8 a.m., it was also approved by the House Industrial Relations Committee by an 8-1 vote. Democrats on the committee weren’t warned of the meeting beforehand, so only one managed to make the vote. (Another bill significantly cutting unemployment benefits for jobless Georgians was approved at the same time.)

To their credit, Tea Party supporters in Georgia also oppose the bill, recognizing that a government that tries to discriminate on the basis of what message is being communicated is a dangerous government to everybody. But their voices, like the voices of so many others, are drowned out by the voice of those who speak loudly and wield big bucks.

– Jay Bookman

309 comments Add your comment

Mick

March 26th, 2012
2:28 pm

I’ll never understand the south and their zealotry of anti-union. Is it the bad memories of the Union army?

kayaker 71

March 26th, 2012
2:28 pm

Sort of like House Bill 347 which is a blatant restriction on the right of free speech that Bozo signed into law recently. No comment about that, Bookman?

Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?

March 26th, 2012
2:29 pm

Will these Republican’s ever learn?

Jay

March 26th, 2012
2:33 pm

Gov. Bozo, kayaker? I’m not familiar with him or her. From what state?

reasonable uber conservative

March 26th, 2012
2:33 pm

I agree with you Jay, either allow them all or don’t allow anyone at all. though I do side with the fine Sandra O’Connor, protesting at a residence is an attempt to harass, it should be done at a public location. Sometimes I wonder if these Republicans really represent me anymore.

Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?

March 26th, 2012
2:33 pm

Oh boy, more deflection. The ODS is strong in these threads

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
2:34 pm

“No comment about that, Bookman?”

blogspot.com is ready when you are

Paul

March 26th, 2012
2:35 pm

Your legislature is on a roll, Jay.

Downhill.

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
2:36 pm

“it should be done at a public location”

Well, here’s the thing: if the picketers are on a sidewalk, they’re on public property. If they’re on a road (when there is no sidewalk) they’re on public property.

chuck

March 26th, 2012
2:36 pm

I don’t have a problem with this bill because we are not talking about political speech here, we are talking about labor disputes. The proper forum for that is at the negotiating table or picketing the building in a commercial area. The problem with labor unions is that they aren’t satisfied with just walking a picket line. They also want to use clubs, throw rocks, and harass anybody who gets in their way. The fact is that it isn’t JUST the company management that is hurt by this but also all of the NEIGHBORS who have to take their kids to school, the NEIGHBORS who have to listen to noise and vile language being spewed by these ruffians, and the total disruption of the NEIGHBORHOOD.

Mick

March 26th, 2012
2:38 pm

yaker

Really now, the name calling of the president is quite sophomoric, thereby lessing anything of substance in your debate…

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
2:39 pm

“I don’t have a problem with this bill because we are not talking about political speech here”

The Constitution says “the right to free speech” it doesn’t say “the right to poliitcal free speech”

Talking Head

March 26th, 2012
2:40 pm

I agree that this bill should apply to all groups and individuals. However I can see why the bill was written this way with the somewhat recent protests of bank executives by union members (doesn’t make it right that the bill only targets them though).

chuck

March 26th, 2012
2:41 pm

doggone…the point is that LABOR DISPUTES have no place in neighborhoods. PERIOD.

reasonable uber conservative

March 26th, 2012
2:42 pm

Doggone/GA, do you want someone to protest on a side walk right in front of your house or a neighbor’s house and wake up early saturday/ sunday morning. going to someones house, even a side walk in front of a house is not to express their free political speech but to harass the resident who doesn’t see their point of view, also like Chuck said, labor disputes are something that should stay at a work location not follow an employee home….

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
2:42 pm

“the point is that LABOR DISPUTES have no place in neighborhoods”

Free speech is free speech. A public sidewalk or road is public property. It’s unconstitutional no matter how you look at it.

Stop...Just Stop

March 26th, 2012
2:42 pm

Kayaker,

I’m going to ask you the same question I’ve taken to asking a lot of people lately whose principle argument is to ignore what someone has to say and to justify doing so by saying “but but but…….you (or your side, or someone who I think is on your side) did this.”

Acting like you just did is nothing short of pure passive aggressive behavior. Passive aggressive behavior is primarily the province of five year olds and spoiled sixteen year old girls. (I have children of both types in my house.)

So my question to you is….which are you? A five year old or a adolescent girl? Take your time, I know this is a tough one.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

March 26th, 2012
2:43 pm

This won’t past constitutional muster.

oh and chuck

I wish I could show you the scars my grandad got fighting union busting goons so selfish mean spirited folks could have a 40 work week and
a bathroom break.

reasonable uber conservative

March 26th, 2012
2:44 pm

Doggone, go scream FIRE in a movie theatre….it’s free speech…you can’t do that. the Supreme Court has generally ruled that political speech is an entity that needs protection and has classified it as such. labor disputes do not equal political speech.

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
2:44 pm

“do you want someone to protest on a side walk right in front of your house or a neighbor’s house and wake up early saturday/ sunday morning.”

If they are not breaking any laws, why not? It’s our right to seek redress of our complaints via the exercise of free speech.

“also like Chuck said, labor disputes are something that should stay at a work location not follow an employee home….”

Nope, as long as they’re not on private property, they have the right to protest publically.

I remember

March 26th, 2012
2:45 pm

To my knowledge its only the labor unions, particularly Obama’s favorite SEIU goons, who have used the “bus hundreds of people to private homes to intimidate ” tactics. Sorry that they were singled out, why should everyone lose rights becasue union’s can’t conduct themselves appropriately?

Mary Elizabeth

March 26th, 2012
2:45 pm

ALEC appears to be the source of much of Georgia’s conservative based Republican legislation. Read the below to become aware. I asked this question on Maureen Downey’s blog and I will repeat it here:

“When will the AJC ask reporters to investigate ALEC’s influence on Georgia’s legislators, and when will the AJC publish findings of that investigation – so that the public will know?

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78448237?access_key=key-a6hdjq8v38luteku97w

===================================================

“But their voices, like the voices of so many others, are drowned out by the voice of those who speak loudly and wield big bucks.”

==================================================
From the link above:

“Led by some of the largest corporations in America, ALEC has quietly brought together legislators and corporate lobbyists to draft legislation behind closed doors. Much of this legislation is designed to benefit directly the bottom lines of corporations that are members of ALEC—corporations like Coca-Cola, Koch Industries, United States Smokeless Tobacco Company and Comcast. ALEC exists specifically so that lobbyists and corporations can influence state legislative policies away from public view. At its meetings, held in some of the most exclusive resorts and hotels to ensure secrecy, corporate lobbyists share their wish lists of legislative proposals to be introduced at state capitols around the country. Legislators take this cookie-cutter legislation, make some changes to it, then introduce it in their own states, often without understanding the full impact of what they are proposing. With help from corporate political contributions, lobbyists then help move the legislation forward. We all like to think that our state laws are created when a constituent raises an issue with a legislator, who then drafts legislation to fix that problem. Increasingly however, that’s not the case and corporate lobbyists, not our legislators, are drafting Minnesota’s laws.”

Bruno

March 26th, 2012
2:45 pm

Under SB 469, you see, the only people or groups that are banned from protesting outside private residences in Georgia are labor unions and union members.

As the bill’s sponsors have made very clear, SB 469 would still allow anti-abortion protesters to demonstrate outside the home of a physician or hospital executive. Environmental groups would still be able to protest outside the homes of company executives. Church groups could still protest outside the homes of strip-club operators.

I guess one could view this new bill as a good start. As “white bread chuck” from the old W2W blog points out above, neighborhood protests also harass non-involved neighbors who are prevented form enjoying the peaceful occupation of their respective properties. World of difference between “public” protests done at the commercial/government site of the protestee vs “private” protests done at people’s homes.

Still shirking at the taxpayer’s expense, chuck?? ;-)

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
2:46 pm

“go scream FIRE in a movie theatre….it’s free speech”

Nope, it isn’t. Try again.

Mick

March 26th, 2012
2:46 pm

granny

That lesson is all but lost and most likely will have to be refought again in the future because there are way too many knuckleheads who don’t know their labor history…

Jay

March 26th, 2012
2:47 pm

So labor disputes have no place in neighborhoods, Chuck, but abortion disputes do? Political disputes do?

Don't Forget

March 26th, 2012
2:48 pm

EZ call on this one. Sandra Day O’Connor was right, period.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

March 26th, 2012
2:49 pm

Mick

Yep, and generally knuckleheads are too cowardly to fight the battles…

Jefferson

March 26th, 2012
2:49 pm

Employers should pay a larger unemployment premium, their gravy train has caught up with Georgia’s ability to pay its bills and provide for the workers. What a bunch of children.

reasonable uber conservative

March 26th, 2012
2:49 pm

that’s my point doggone, I know it’s not….neither is being angry that my employeer won’t give me a $1.50 an hour wage increase and pay 10% more on my health premiums. that’s a labor dispute that should stay at a work place and not follow the employer to his private residents….

Mick

March 26th, 2012
2:50 pm

mary elizabeth

Check out krugman today and his comments on ALEC. Another koch funded organization trying to change america for the worst…

Don't Forget

March 26th, 2012
2:50 pm

Hmmmm, those protesters look suspicious…………..

Bruno

March 26th, 2012
2:51 pm

I’m going to ask you the same question I’ve taken to asking a lot of people lately whose principle argument is to ignore what someone has to say and to justify doing so by saying “but but but…….you (or your side, or someone who I think is on your side) did this.”

Stop–Have you ever heard of the principle of truth-seeking called “putting things into context”?? If the only context you will allow is one in which Republicans are forever wrong and Democrats are forever right, maybe it’s you who needs to do a maturity level check.

kayaker 71

March 26th, 2012
2:52 pm

HR 347….. a bill signed into law almost unanimously by a Republican Congress, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. Called a fairy tale name, “The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act”, this law is said necessary to “improve public grounds by moving protestors elsewhere”. This makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. It makes it a federal offense punishable for up to 10 yrs to protest anywhere the secret service is guarding someone. At “National Special Security Events”, ie the Super Bowl, a concert, the Winter Olympics, a sporting event, you can be arrested for speaking out. This makes it easier for those being protested to shield themselves from protestors.
I am surprised that you liberals with all of your “fairness doctrine” would not be outraged by something like this. I never said that I and others like me liked what the OWS people were saying. But they have every right to say it.

chuck

March 26th, 2012
2:53 pm

Ever hear of something called “disturbing the peace”? If your position is that there are no limits on “free speech”, then why do government buildings, college campuses and other entities like malls, have so-called “free speech zones”? Why is it okay to restrict speech to just those areas if you can’t add a restriction like this?

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
2:53 pm

“that’s a labor dispute that should stay at a work place and not follow the employer to his private residents”

Nope. It’s a complaint that is being aired via free speech. As long as they are on a public sidewalk or road, they have just as much right to exercise their free speech as do any other protestors.

mm

March 26th, 2012
2:54 pm

“ALEC appears to be the source of much of Georgia’s conservative based Republican legislation.”

It’s the same all over the country. These rightwing bozos don’t have an original thought in their heads. Just look at the posts on this blog.

The ignorant defending the indefensible.

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
2:55 pm

“Why is it okay to restrict speech to just those areas if you can’t add a restriction like this?

Well, I would not agree that it’s Ok to do that either.

Thulsa Doom

March 26th, 2012
2:56 pm

“Free speech is free speech. A public sidewalk or road is public property”

Porn is protected as “free speech”. I can just see it now. Ron Jeremy practicing his free speech on the sidewalk in front of Pat Robertson’s house.

Bruno

March 26th, 2012
2:58 pm

I am surprised that you liberals with all of your “fairness doctrine” would not be outraged by something like this. I never said that I and others like me liked what the OWS people were saying. But they have every right to say it.

Kayaker—-shhhhhhh. The Libs here love their selective outrage so much, they want to limit all blog speech to only outrages that are strictly Republican in origin. Focus, man, focus.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

March 26th, 2012
2:59 pm

Hmmmm, those protesters look suspicious…………..

Hmmmm, those protesters are wearing hoodies…………..

STAND YOUR GROUND!

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
2:59 pm

“Ron Jeremy practicing his free speech on the sidewalk in front of Pat Robertson’s house.”

If he’s violating public decency laws that apply to ALL then he is not protected from the consequences of his actions.

Thulsa Doom with his boot on liberal throats

March 26th, 2012
2:59 pm

“Fairness doctrine”, trying to booth Limbaugh from the airwaves, going after his advertisers. Libs do love free speech they do. They just love it when its they free speech they do.

Liberals- they low down. They lie. Dey snitches too!

ragnar danneskjold

March 26th, 2012
3:01 pm

Agree, 469 should be broadened. Homes should be off limits.

Thulsa Doom with his boot on liberal throats

March 26th, 2012
3:01 pm

Doggone,

I knows. I just figured I would insert that visual in there for shock value. I should have inserted my keep up disclaimer letting folks know that it was just a facetious statement.

Mary Elizabeth

March 26th, 2012
3:03 pm

Mick, 2:50 pm

Thanks for the tip, Mick. I had not read Krugman’s editorial today, but I will certainly read it later today. I’m gone for now. Appreciate the tip. ALEC was organized in the 1970s and has been on the move since then, but it has been low key and secretive about its ideological manueverings to impact America toward its ends. The public has only recently become aware.

I just scanned the Krugman article and I noticed that he mentioned union busting associated with ALEC. Here is the link. I will read the article, thoroughly, this evening. For anyone else who wants to know more about how and why much of this nation has changed as it has in the last few decades, I recommend that you read this link, also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Thulsa Doom with his boot on liberal throats

March 26th, 2012
3:03 pm

Libs wif dey selective outrage? Say it aint so…

kayaker 71

March 26th, 2012
3:03 pm

This Georgia Bill is just as idiotic as Bozo’s legislation. It’s that creeping effort to erode our rights. Do it just a little at a time…. not too fast or protests will be too great. Then when the public has gotten used to the new rules, make another one, not too blatant, not too gross but just enough to re-inforce your point. No one draws a line in the sand, the media does not protest unless it is a Republican doing it and then we are ready for another one. Pretty soon, you are being led around by the nose by a powerful government intent on maintaining it’s power and increasing it when it can. Doesn’t make a tinker’s damn who the political party is. It’s being done every day and no one is saying anything.

JamVet

March 26th, 2012
3:04 pm

Chuck, please do, in some cogent fashion, address the question at 2:47 that was asked directly of you. Or don’t.

But on it rests the entire speciousness of your assertion…

Don't Forget

March 26th, 2012
3:04 pm

Thulsa, what is your opposition to consumers who think Rush is a cancer boycotting Rush’s sponsors?

Stop...Just Stop

March 26th, 2012
3:05 pm

Kayaker,

Your 2:52 post did nothing but bolster my point.

chuck

March 26th, 2012
3:05 pm

Jay, I don’t think it is okay to disturb the peace of a private neighborhood for any reason, and I don’t think the first amendment protects one from being arrested for disturbing the peace. As I said before, if what we were talking about here was just a peaceful picket in front of someone’s house that doesn’t restrict traffic in the neighborhood or foot traffic such as people walking their dogs or jogging, I wouldn’t have too much of a problem with it. The reason this bill was introduced though was because of the violent assaults on people’s sensibilities through the angry rhetoric, screaming obscenities and other misbehaviors that seem to follow unions (aka organized crime).

Brudog, wazzup? Still down in S. Georgia?

Mick

March 26th, 2012
3:05 pm

bruno

Yes, it’s required to drop the lib card into every post these days, where is your argumentive creativity man? Bummer…

ragnar danneskjold

March 26th, 2012
3:05 pm

Group offers $10,000 to ‘capture’ Anwar al-Awlaki’s killer – would that distress anyone?

nydailynews.com/news/national/black-panther-rage-10g-capture-trayvon-killer-article-1.1050370

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
3:05 pm

” going after his advertisers”

When advertisers purchase “air time” what they are buying is access to an audience, in the hope that it will increase their sales. If it becomes clear to them that they are quite likely to LOSE business because of which show they buy time on…it is THEIR decision whether to continue supporting that show or not. No one is forcing them to stop.

Bruno

March 26th, 2012
3:06 pm

Porn is protected as “free speech”. I can just see it now. Ron Jeremy practicing his free speech on the sidewalk in front of Pat Robertson’s house.

As a funny aside, you may remember that Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt were close friends prior to Falwell’s passing. As Flynt liked to say: “I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.”

Here’s a followup story:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-flynt20may20,0,2751741.story

TaxPayer

March 26th, 2012
3:07 pm

Gov. Bozo, kayaker? I’m not familiar with him or her. From what state?

Why, from his “state” of mind. It’s a scary place. Full of clowns. With big teeth.

Jay

March 26th, 2012
3:08 pm

Limbaugh, Thulsa? Is that the same Limbaugh who led mobs howling for a ban on the Dixie Chicks for the crime of saying they were ashamed to be from the same state as President Bush?

How about the attempted boycott of Disneyland for hosting gay-friendly events? Or the attempted boycott of JC Penney for hiring Ellen as spokesman?

This claim of right-wing abhorrence of economic boycotts is laughable.

William

March 26th, 2012
3:09 pm

“This is not an arcane point of constitutional law. It is not a close call.”

Jay, the lamentable FACT is that we are now so far from things being truly constitutional it is hard to see how we can remedy the situation without something akin to a revolution. It is almost pointless to argue about the constitutionally of this or that law because so much of what the federal government does is strictly unconstitutional. All three branches of the federal government are complicit in subverting the constitution since almost the beginning of our nation.

I ask everyone here: what is the point of having a contractual standard like the Constitution if people want to pick and choose what they will comply with? We need to get the Constitution and practices in line, even if that means modifying both so that we can really have a blueprint. And if anyone here wants to dispute my main contention, then I would recommend you do some serious study of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution to understand what it was intended to do and how, through the years, it has become less and less a manual for the way things are done.

Bruno

March 26th, 2012
3:10 pm

Brudog, wazzup? Still down in S. Georgia?

Yep, still working my tail off in Columbus. You should be getting close to retirement by now, eh?? Looks like I’ll be working until I drop…….

Brosephus™

March 26th, 2012
3:10 pm

I wonder if that ban on speech also includes the Labor Union’s free $$$peech as well…

As to picketing private residences, if the protest is on public property, I don’t see how one can limit the protest and not run afoul of the 1st Amendment. If the protest gets rowdy or causes a disturbance, then that’s somehing different and more of a disturbing the peace issue.

Thulsa Doom with his boot on liberal throats

March 26th, 2012
3:10 pm

Don’t Forget,

Its their choice to do so. I just believe in free speech. Personally I want the craziest lib speakers to be heard because in my view they cannot win the battle of ideas and rational thought.

I just find it curious that in general you don’t find cons advocating shutting down other folks free speech no matter how repulsive or wrong headed. Its generally the liberals who want to silence people’s free speech and go to the lengths of going after someone’s advertisers in an effort to silence them. Cons are disgusted by the things Bill Maher says about conservative women. But we don’t want him taken off the air and we don’t go after HBO in organized efforts to silence his free speech.

Its just a very noticeable difference in attitudes about free speech between cons and libs. Libs try to silence those with whom they disagree while cons generally do not.

Butch Cassidy

March 26th, 2012
3:12 pm

Is this the same Balfour who recently decided that bailouts, as long as they are issued by Republicans, are good?

TaxPayer

March 26th, 2012
3:13 pm

Republicans have already established what they are. Beyond that, it’s just dickering over price. If you want to find a Georgia Republican politician, look for the highest bidder. That would be the corporate CEO’s house guaranteed by Georgia law to have no picketers, for one thing.

Thulsa Doom with his boot on liberal throats

March 26th, 2012
3:14 pm

Jay,

I’ve never heard of any of that. Seems I need to listen to Limbaugh more often. Must not have gotten much traction amongst many cons. You must be listening to a lot of Limbaugh. Certainly a lot more than me. And if what you say is true then Limbaugh deserved what he got in people going after his advertisers.

Mick

March 26th, 2012
3:14 pm

**Libs try to silence those with whom they disagree while cons generally do not**

Another day of snot nosed, one sided gibberish brought to you by the anti libbers bedwetters club…

Jay

March 26th, 2012
3:15 pm

FYI, I’m in the Georgia Senate chambers.

They’ve just begun debate on HB 954, the anti-abortion bill that I’ve written about earlier. If you wish, you can watch live at http://www.gpb.org/lawmakers/senate

Butch Cassidy

March 26th, 2012
3:15 pm

Thulsa Doom – “But we don’t want him taken off the air and we don’t go after HBO in organized efforts to silence his free speech. ”

No need, only those who want to see and hear Maher are affected, because HBO is a premium subscriber paid service. Now, if everyone with an HBO subscription suddenly became indignant, then they might be able to make a difference. Of course, they’d have to deal with people who think that Trueblood is nothing more than soft core vampire porn, and on and on we go…..

chuck

March 26th, 2012
3:15 pm

’bout 5 more years and I’ll hang it up. I won’t miss it much either. This is a crazy time to be a teacher.

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
3:16 pm

“If the protest gets rowdy or causes a disturbance, then that’s somehing different and more of a disturbing the peace issue”

Exactly. Same as with yelling “Fire” in a crowded place. If it’s true, that’s your defense. If it’s not true, then it’s not free speech – it’s disturbing the peace.

Brosephus™

March 26th, 2012
3:17 pm

I just find it curious that in general you don’t find cons advocating shutting down other folks free speech no matter how repulsive or wrong headed.

Ummm, is that not what Jay’s topic is all about? A 8-1 vote in committee with one Democrat voting.

JamVet

March 26th, 2012
3:17 pm

…violent assaults on people’s sensibilities…

What the ??? does that even mean?

This is a strange conflation with the rights of ALL non-union protests that will not be affected by this proposed legislation with an entirely unrelated topic of violent or peaceful protests.

Oh, and that penchant for some to lay the blame for illegal activities therein at the feet of one group only, though it happens across the board.

And the bigger question to me, is why are these quasi-fascists so threatened by the constitutionally protected right to assemble and petition to redress grievances?

Why, from his “state” of mind. It’s a scary place. Full of clowns. With big teeth.

TaxP. that cracked me up! This place is like a Stephen King story sometimes!

Road Scholar

March 26th, 2012
3:18 pm

But but but the repubs promised transparency and time to ponder legislation after Obamacare approval…but…

kayaker 71

March 26th, 2012
3:19 pm

So the Black Panther thugs, along with Farrakhan, are organizing a 10,000 black man march to find this “white Hispanic” perp who has not even been charged with a crime yet. Where is the President, where is Sharpton, where is Je$$ie, where is Holder and our Justice Dept.? Vigilante justice and Holder is not saying a word. Hell, his special counsel resigned over the failure to prosecute these thugs then wrote a book about how racially biased that the Dept of Justice has become since Holder took over. The media?….. silent for the most part. What if this was the Tea Party? Wow. Can you imagine all of those silver haired people with their protest signs? They might even hit you with their lawn chairs. Those brown shirted racist Nazis…..

William

March 26th, 2012
3:20 pm

“It’s just a very noticeable difference in attitudes about free speech between cons and libs. Libs try to silence those with whom they disagree while cons generally do not.”

I’m not sure I agree with this entirely, TD. Conservatives do try to “punish” offensive speech and behavior through boycotts, consumer complaints and the like. I would concede that liberals try to restrict speech through government and so are, perhaps, more Orwellian in that regard.

Peadawg

March 26th, 2012
3:20 pm

“Labor unions — and only labor unions — would be prevented from expressing their opinions in such a manner.” – And there’s the problem. Like that Theory of a Deadman song says – “all of nothing let’s just give it a try”.

Bruno

March 26th, 2012
3:21 pm

Gotta run, but I’d love to hear Jay’s take on the ongoing “no context allowed” argument which the Leftie’s keep throwing up here. Is it some kind of intellectual dishonesty to see how one particular political party’s transgressions stack up against the others’?? Is a breach of the Bookman Blog etiquette to discuss wrongdoing by Democrats, or should all conversation be necessarily pro-Democrat and anti-Republican??

Brosephus™

March 26th, 2012
3:22 pm

Bruno

From downstairs about your advice on medical insurance, I can’t take the chance with a high deductible. Being constantly exposed to stuff like meningitis, the measles, TB, HIV, and other stuff both knowingly and unknowingly leaves me little room to gamble with my health. As I said, it’s a precaution that I’m willing to pay for because of my line of work. I’ve even been exposed to stuff that I have no clue what it was. Nothing worse than seeing somebody with some wicked looking rash standing right in front of you or finding that rash after you’ve had to grab them and secure them….

Peadawg

March 26th, 2012
3:22 pm

“FYI, I’m in the Georgia Senate chambers.” – Wave to the camera, Jay! :)

Btw…funny Jay is talking about the constitution while supporting the gov’t forcing us to buy a private product. :lol: Sorry…couldn’t help it.

Jay

March 26th, 2012
3:25 pm

“Cons are disgusted by the things Bill Maher says about conservative women. But we don’t want him taken off the air and we don’t go after HBO in organized efforts to silence his free speech.”

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a357576/bill-maher-upsets-conservatives-prompts-hbo-boycott-over-tebow-tweet.html

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/should-conservatives-boycott-hbo-over-bill-maher

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bozell-fire-shultz-msnbc/2012/03/16/id/432821

etc. etc., etc.,

Oscar

March 26th, 2012
3:26 pm

From the way I read that opinion, all protests and picketing of private residenses is banned by the Supreme Court. The law is not offensive because it bans speech in front of private houses, but because it only bans some speech. Don’t see the point of the law since the Supreme Court has already banned all such speech. They need to find something better to do with their time down at the state house.

Thulsa Doom with his boot on liberal throats

March 26th, 2012
3:26 pm

Jay,

I binged Limbaugh boycotting Dixie Chicks and can’t seem to find anything. Obviously he had a lot of criticism about them but I can’t find anything on an organized boycott led by the “howling Rush Limbaugh”. Your indignation is a bit exaggerated.

As for the other 2 boycotts you mentioned I don’t see much of a boycott attempt. The fact that these boycotts failed so miserably tells me there wasn’t much steam behind them- hence my statement seems to be standing true.

kayaker 71

March 26th, 2012
3:26 pm

Brocephus,

What line of work are you in?

Bruno

March 26th, 2012
3:26 pm

Nothing worse than seeing somebody with some wicked looking rash standing right in front of you or finding that rash after you’ve had to grab them and secure them….

The only thing worse might be not noticing a rash until the morning after a drunken bar pick-up. ;-)

William

March 26th, 2012
3:28 pm

“Btw…funny Jay is talking about the constitution while supporting the gov’t forcing us to buy a private product.”

With the escalating cost of health insurance, you are going to have to either require people to buy insurance of sign a waiver in which they accept full responsibility for their own medical expenses. We simply cannot, as taxpayers, keep underwriting the cost of irresponsible citizen or illegal immigrants. We cannot afford it, period.

Oscar

March 26th, 2012
3:28 pm

Peadawg

__________

If it helps, thinks of it as everyone being forced to pay their fair share into the health care system.
(For the record, I am not in favor of the mandates either)

Bruno

March 26th, 2012
3:32 pm

We simply cannot, as taxpayers, keep underwriting the cost of irresponsible citizen or illegal immigrants. We cannot afford it, period.

William–What do you expect to change following the mandate?? How much of the 8% of insurance premiums attributed to non-reimbursed care for the uninsured can you reasonably expect to recapture?? Hint: the vast majority of the uninsured are young, poor, or here illegally.

JamVet

March 26th, 2012
3:32 pm

As for that avalanche of sponsors that bailed on the Excrement in Broadcasting program, it was all brought about by peaceful protests.

Awesome. Does he have ANY left? LOL.

Much like those kids at that Woolworth’s counter in Greensboro, NC brought economic pressure to bear against injustice, this is the ultimate American/capitalist way of fighting back.

And even though Ronnie loved the apartheid regime, how the corporations in this country and other groups around the world forced South Africa to clean up it’s horrible act.

And why it is so disheartening to see these FAR right wing Republicans that are so adamantly opposed to grass roots efforts by working people to take on injustice.

One more observation about chuck’s “violent assaults on people’s sensibilities”, would he fully endorse legislation that would keep the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting at funerals of Georgia veterans?

chuck

March 26th, 2012
3:32 pm

Just a sampling of what I am talking about:

In Hamburg, New York, near Buffalo, leaders of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 17 stand accused of violent acts, threats of violence, and destruction of property. According to court papers and to coverage by the Buffalo News, the charges against them include stabbing a knife into the neck of a construction company president, throwing hot coffee at non-union workers, pouring sand into gas tanks and transmissions of 17 construction vehicles, and threatening sexual assault against the wife of a company representative.

Earlier this month union violence erupted in the West, with angry longshoremen bringing shipping to a halt in the ports of Seattle and Tacoma.

At a new $200 million grain export terminal in Longview, Washington, 500 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, outraged that terminal owners were using labor from a different union, stormed the terminal before sunrise on September 8. Wielding baseball bats, they smashed windows and dumped tons of grain from 72 railroad freight cars, according to local law enforcement and to accounts in the Seattle Times, the New York Times and the Journal of Commerce.

“A group of Washington, D.C. protesters upset about the possibility of a Wal-Mart store coming to their area is hoping to send the potential developer of the proposed store a message. So much so that they‘re planning to march to and protest at the developer’s personal residence. The group has even gone as far as to circulate the man’s home address.
But the address may not be the flyer’s only controversial element. Ironically, it also contains a target symbol — a similar picture to the one seen on a district map created by Sarah Palin and that’s sparked outrage from the left in the wake of the shootings in Tucson. And what‘s worrying is that the group’s symbol is connected to specific event at a private residence:”

“A similar protest from this past summer, however, raises concerns about the organization’s tactics.

Last May, a group of picketers from the SEIU showed up at the home of Bank of America executive Greg Baer. The only one home at the time of the protest, however, was Baer’s teenage son. The boy was so frightened by those shouting outside, he locked himself in the bathroom until his dad returned home (where Baer had to fight his way through the crowd) to comfort him.”

Peadawg

March 26th, 2012
3:32 pm

I didn’t mean to change subjects or “deflect”. I was just making a funny. But I’ll address this real quick:

“If it helps, thinks of it as everyone being forced to pay their fair share into the health care system.” – Which sounds very nice. It really does. But forcing people to buy a private product (insurance in this case) opens up Pandora’s box that doesn’t need to be open. That’s my problem with it.

Carry on with the current subject…just tried to poke at Jay.

getalife

March 26th, 2012
3:36 pm

Poking pea.

Now they want your facebook password after you pee in a cup.

JamVet

March 26th, 2012
3:37 pm

Just a sampling of the violent assaults on people’s sensibilities that I am talking about…

Shouldn’t this be outlawed in Georgia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8

ragnar danneskjold

March 26th, 2012
3:37 pm

469 is clearly inadequate for the purpose: redstate.com/erick/2012/03/26/the-left-no-longer-finds-dissent-patriotic/

Oscar

March 26th, 2012
3:38 pm

Carry on with the current subject…just tried to poke at Jay.

_______

The current subject seems to be a dead issue. No protests or picketing is allowed in front of a private home by virtue of the Surpreme Court decision. While you are down there at the state house, can you explain that to them.

TaxPayer

March 26th, 2012
3:38 pm

So, according to the Georgia Republican party of holier than thou white men, they own their women and they’ll decide what they can and cannot do. I’m sure Republican women all over the state are bowing their heads in affirmation. However, they are no longer happy with just owning their Republican women. Now they want to own all women, regardless of their beliefs. :roll: By the way, how much is the state willing to pay for this new right to own all women’s bodies.

William

March 26th, 2012
3:39 pm

“William–What do you expect to change following the mandate?? How much of the 8% of insurance premiums attributed to non-reimbursed care for the uninsured can you reasonably expect to recapture?? Hint: the vast majority of the uninsured are young, poor, or here illegally.”

A good percentage of it. One does what he has or wants to do. It is a matter of priorities. Many of these same people probably have iPhones, cars, gaming systems, big screen televisions and other non-essential things. I haven’t researched it to see if he was right, but one good point Santorum made in the debates is that only 2% of those young people who 1) graduated from HS 2) had a job and 3) got married before having children were below the poverty line. I suspect that a whole lot of people’s economic woes are behavioral more than anything else.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 26th, 2012
3:39 pm

they are attempts to harass and intimidate.

Ok, everyone to Jay’s house tonight to picket. Everybody bring a different brand of bourbon as gifts to harass and intimidate.

Doggone/GA

March 26th, 2012
3:39 pm

“Now they want your facebook password after you pee in a cup”

Not a problem for me! Heck, here’s my facebook password for ANYONE who wants it:

William

March 26th, 2012
3:40 pm

“But forcing people to buy a private product (insurance in this case) opens up Pandora’s box that doesn’t need to be open. That’s my problem with it.”

No problem. They can sign a waiver taking full responsibility for their own medical expenses.

chuck

March 26th, 2012
3:40 pm

Jamvet, I think the westboro protestors are scumbags. If they were doing their protests in a peaceful neighborhood, following the family of a soldier to their homes, I would be in favor of such a law.

BTW, Rush’s advertising actually increased after the “boycott” according to at least one report I heard, and so did his audience share.