View Full Version : FederalCourt stops Fla from blocking activists
Federal court stops Florida from blocking nude anti-war activists
Associated Press
Last updated: Feb 14, 01:01 AM
WEST PALM BEACH (AP) -- A federal court judge Thursday barred the State of Florida from trying to block plans by a group of women to gather in a state park, strip nude and form a peace symbol with their bodies in protest of a U.S. war on Iraq.
In his 11-page order, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote that "nude overtly political speech in the form of a 'living nude peace symbol' is expressive conduct well within the ambit of the First Amendment."
Middlebrooks also ruled, however, that the state could erect signs to notify the public that the protest would be taking place, or it could put screens around the demonstrators.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida went to court in defense of a naturist and a videographer who planned to record the nude demonstration.
The demonstration is scheduled for Friday morning at John D. MacArthur Beach State Park on Singer Island, north of West Palm Beach.
Similar demonstrations have taken place in recent weeks in New York and California.
Federal court stops Florida from blocking nude anti-war activists
Associated Press
Last updated: Feb 14, 01:01 AM
WEST PALM BEACH (AP) -- A federal court judge Thursday barred the State of Florida from trying to block plans by a group of women to gather in a state park, strip nude and form a peace symbol with their bodies in protest of a U.S. war on Iraq.
In his 11-page order, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote that "nude overtly political speech in the form of a 'living nude peace symbol' is expressive conduct well within the ambit of the First Amendment."
Middlebrooks also ruled, however, that the state could erect signs to notify the public that the protest would be taking place, or it could put screens around the demonstrators.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida went to court in defense of a naturist and a videographer who planned to record the nude demonstration.
The demonstration is scheduled for Friday morning at John D. MacArthur Beach State Park on Singer Island, north of West Palm Beach.
Similar demonstrations have taken place in recent weeks in New York and California.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Federal court stops Florida from blocking nude anti-war activists....
U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote that "nude overtly political speech in the form of a 'living nude peace symbol' is expressive conduct well within the ambit of the First Amendment." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can't WAIT to hear this extended to an argument that "nudism is expressive conduct well within the bounds of the First Amendment." /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Thanks for the note. Are you participating?
Frank R
02-14-2003, 01:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cyndiann:
[QB]Federal court stops Florida from blocking nude anti-war activists
strip nude and form a peace symbol with their bodies in protest of a U.S. war on Iraq...
U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote that "nude overtly political speech in the form of a 'living nude peace symbol' is expressive conduct well within the ambit of the First Amendment."
I think the key point here is the "...overtly political speech..." part, not the nudity. Based on rulings of the Supreme Court, I have little doubt he is correct in his ruling. For those who us who are nudist but don't agree with this perhaps we could form a nude 'WAR" symbol! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Remember, it only takes 5 justices to discover some new "right" in the constitution that all previous justices had "overlooked" like they did for abortion and suppressing evidence in criminal cases. Hence, legal nudity could just be right around the corner so to speak.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Middlebrooks also ruled, however, that the state could erect signs to notify the public that the protest would be taking place, or it could put screens around the demonstrators. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/r1kk1100/shout.gif Stu ?! Over here - I've got a job for you!
Rik
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Middlebrooks also ruled, however, that the state could erect signs to notify the public that the protest would be taking place, or it could put screens around the demonstrators. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/r1kk1100/shout.gif Stu ?! Over here - I've got a job for you!
Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROFL!!!
vin said "Are you participating?"
Wish I was... this event is a part of the Midwinter Festival going on at Sunsport Gardens and I've made that a couple of times. Wasn't possible this time though. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
And Rik.... I'm gonna kick your butt! LOL! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Rik,
Stu ?! Over here - I've got a job for you!
. I wasn't actually going to enter this debate, but as I've been summoned... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Don't worry. I have absolutely no intention of going anywhere near a bunch of extremists exposing their private parts because they don't agree with a decision made by the guy they elected and (according to your precious polls) most Americans agree with.
I appreciate the offer though. A nice hosing down by police using water-canon would dampen their enthusiasm.
Stu
missouriboy
02-15-2003, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote that "nude overtly political speech in the form of a 'living nude peace symbol' is expressive conduct well within the ambit of the First Amendment."
Middlebrooks also ruled, however, that the state could...put screens around the demonstrators.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>HUH? First he says the action is protected by the First Amendment, then contradicts that with a violation of that Amendment! If a "screen" around visual speech is not an "abridgement," then what the hell is?
Got any lawyers around here, please?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I have absolutely no intention of going anywhere near a bunch of extremists... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Extremists? They're opposed to the needless killing and they're extremists?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...exposing their private parts because they don't agree with a decision made by the guy they elected... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was dubious election.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> and (according to your precious polls) most Americans agree with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"A poll conducted last month by the Lansing-based polling firm EPIC/MRA showed that 56 percent of those polled support a war with Iraq in the near future. But that support comes with conditions.
Fifty-two percent said they oppose a war if the United States isn't supported by more of its allies -- besides Great Britain -- and fails to win the support of the United Nations Security Council." Source http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0302/15/metro-85514.htm
Hardly a resounding endorsement.
Rik
Rik,
They are extremists not because they are opposing the war. They are extremists because they are exposing their private bits as a way of opposing a war.
"It was dubious election."
What? You mean the US isn't a democracy after all? You mean it's some kind of dictatorship like...Iraq? Steady on old bean!
"Fifty-two percent said they oppose a war if..."
Just remind me of the figure polling companies show as a possible "margin of error". I seem to think it's 3%. How fortuitous!
"Hardly a resounding endorsement."
True. But then again only 27% of the adult population at the last election voted Labour, yet we have a Labour government with a huge majority. What does that prove, you ask me. Well I don't know. OK so just ignore me - I'm rambling again. It's been a long day.
Stu
Frank R
02-15-2003, 05:04 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
What? You mean the US isn't a democracy after all? You mean it's some kind of dictatorship like...Iraq? Steady on old bean!
No Stu, the US is not and never has been a democracy. It is a republic, rule by law, not mob rule like the UK. Our entire Bill of Rights is nothing more than limits on what a majority of people, acting through their elected officials, can do. The entire Bill of Rights can be summed up with the words "Government shall not" or "a majority of people shall not" and then a long list of what they can't do.
Frank, I doubt that many Americans would agree that the US is not a democracy, including your own president.
My dictionary defines a democracy as "government by the people or their representatives". Whatever your Bill of Rights says I feel sure that your system of government is based upon the notion of the people (you know, those people you referred to as the "mob") deciding by means of election who governs them. It's not that different to our system really.
Stu
Frank R
02-16-2003, 05:37 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB]Frank, I doubt that many Americans would agree that the US is not a democracy, including your own president.
My dictionary defines a democracy as "government by the people or their representatives".
Many people did not believe the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun either but that did not it make it any less true. "The Federalist Papers" (articles written encouraging states to accept our constitution) states on why we did not set up a democracy "Democracies in general have been as short in their lives as they have violent in their deaths" Democracy, Stu, is mob rule - the vote is 51 to 49 so they string him up. There are no minorities (at least for long) in a democracy. There is only the majority. That's fine in a democracy but not in a republic. Our constitution guarantees to every state a "republican form" of government. When we pledge allegiance to the flag it is to the Republic for which it stands, not the democracy.
I will grant you Stu that a great many people misunderstand or do not know the difference between the two. Our government indoctrination centers in this nation (called "public schools" by big government advocates) have done a great job of mis-educating people for many years on what type of government we have but lies can never replace truth forever. If you really want to understand the two, read the book "On the Differences between a Republic and a Democracy" written some 30 years ago or so.
Frank,
Perhaps the meanings of words have changed over the course of time - they do - so we could be getting bogged down in an issue of semantics. My dictionary defines "republic" as "a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power". That sounds extremely similar to the definition of "democracy" to me.
In simple political terms - I live in a country in which there are three limbs of government - the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The people elect representatives to act as legislature and executive. The judiciary are appointed largely by the executive but are then independent of them. We have a constitution which, unlike yours, is not contained within a specific document. Our constitution can be changed, but significant changes are not easy to achieve unless there is consensus. We don't have a Bill of Rights, but we do adopt the European Convention on Human Rights, and this empowers our courts to over-rule our legislators and executive under certain circumstances. Is that SO different to your system of government?
As far as "democracies being as short in their lives...etc" is concerned, our Parliament has existed for many centuries and our form of democracy evolved from a situation of total power being in the hands of an unelected king. The US had the advantage of being able to learn from others' experiences and choose a system of government from afresh. Other European countries, including monarchies, have enjoyed successful liberal and democratic governments since the late medievel times.
Minority rights are respected in democracies because the representatives and the judiciary are selected by the people - and the people aren't generally "the mob", but ordinary, responsible and fair-minded citizens. Would you really suggest that, for example, minorities such as black people, homosexuals and even naturists are treated better in the US than they are in democracies such as Sweden, Holland or England? I don't know if you've ever been to Europe, Frank, but if you haven't, I think it's about time you came.
Stu
Oh Yes. I nearly forgot:
"President Bush said that: "The tragic attack on the World Trade Center is an attack on Democracy" and President Truman said: "It’s not the hand that signs the laws that holds the destiny of America, it’s the hand that casts the ballot." Voting gives us an opportunity to prove that Democracy in America is alive and well . . . to prove that terrorists can destroy our buildings but not our precious freedoms!"
News From Your State League
http://www.lwvny.org/SBRNov01/news_from_your_state_league.htm
So the US president thinks that America is a democracy. You gonna tell him he's wrong or shall I /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ?
Stu
Dale B
03-13-2003, 08:02 PM
If you really want to understand the two, read the book "On the Differences between a Republic and a Democracy" written some 30 years ago or so.
-------------------------------------------------
Maybe this should be read by the people already in any governmental office, and those running in elections so that they know for sure of the difference.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.