What does this say about our First Amendment rights?

Question

I posted a similar question yesterday, but nobody got it, so I want to ask everyone this question. Do you think the man in the following article would have been arrested -- in front of an office just as open to the public as a post office -- if he had said that he was there to distribute a flyer announcing that the local Girl Scout troop was selling cookies? If not, then what does this mean for all of us?

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4640.0

Oops, I posted the wrong link. This article was the one I intended to post:

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=216&Itemid=36

IMHO Russell Kanning is no fool. He planned this expecting to be arrested because he considered that to be the best way to make his point. Some might say he exploited the law Jack described to dramatize his point, but I still believe that if it weren't for the political nature of his message they wouldn't have hauled him off in handcuffs, then later arrested him more roughly at his home. This was an overzealous show of force that seemed to be intended as a deterrent to anyone with anti-Bush messages, and I think it made his point far better than delivering the flyers could have. Read the news story in the second link above if you missed it before (sorry about the blog link).

I found some newer information on the case, and regretfully I'll have to agree with Jack that the arrest was legitimate (but as I said above, he wanted to be arrested).
http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/08/04/another-take-on-the-russell-kanning-situation/
Although I agree with his cause, I'm afraid he went overboard and probably would have made his case more effectively if he'd kept his civil disobedience more civil. Nevertheless, he's expressing the same frustration that 60% of us feel at seeing our tax dollars misspent on a war we no longer believe in (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html?section=cnn_latest)
I'm going to open this up to voting after allowing another day or two for feedback on this update, but if I had to pick a best answer myself, I'd have a hard time choosing between potobebo's and Jack's. Both are right. Russell Kanning may have carried his protest too far, but it's true that the government is no longer sensitive to the desires of the people.

I'd also like to add that whether this case proves it or not, past arrests of people wearing anti-Bush t-shirts (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132425,00.html) have demonstrated that this administration represses freedom of speech. That's why I still agree with potobebo. On that note, take a look at this: http://www.janrainwater.com/htdocs/Rohde.htm
I agree with every word wholeheartedly, and even if I didn't I'd defend to my death his right to say it. That's the true American way.

Answer 1

Ahhh, now I have a better idea. Your question isn't quite accurate is it. Your question talks about someone standing outside and offering a leaflet (or Girl Scout cookies); but that's not what the article said. The man in question wasn't arrested for standing outside; he tried to enter the offices of the IRS and distribute the pamphlets. Please know, All federal offices (for a long, long time) have been protected spaces that are only for the conducting of official government business. And this gentleman wanted to enter a government building for an unauthorized purpose. Sorry, but his bust was righteous.

Federal properties are really heavilly regulated. For example, all members of Congress have their home district offices in federal buildings. Did you know that if one of the congressperson's campaign contributors comes by the office to give a campaign check, the member of Congress must leave his/her office and take the person out on the street to receive the check? This is so because a person's campaigning is NOT considered official government work. It's true. And any member of Congress who violates this law can be busted. (And some have been busted).

Federal property means that everyone (people who work there -- and people who visit there) MUST be doing something "official." This priciple has been around for a long time. I wouldn't worry about it as a violation of anyone's constitutional rights.

I agree with "Ik Weets;" you offer a Blog site. They tend to be notoriously unreliable. I really have no idea who this person is or what he (allegedly) did. Can you provide a news article?

Answer 2

I see our future as a Human face, stamped by a boot, for the rest of Eternity !
Have you read "1984" of George Orwell? (Eric Blair)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_consciousness (Class consciousness)

Have you ever read that thing ? :

Patriot Act : http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/default.html

Do you know who really rule, and how, and why ?
They are the Illuminatis, and they own you,
This is the New World Order, and it is your future if the world don't wake up :

And this is what Bush’s minions had to say in 2000;-
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
Project for the New American Century (2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Göring(Nazi) 1946 Nuremberg Trials

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
David Rockefeller: Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with other around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefellers memoirs (2002)

Patriot Act : http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/default.html
The Bush's helped finance the Waffen SS and SA.
The Bush family has had dealings with Saddam Hussein involving oil drilling and real estate.
The Bush family has connections to the Bin Laden family. This includes a close partnership in the Carlyle group and Arbusto oil. The Bin Ladens and the Bush's have had a long close relationship.
However I don't know if they actually had money taken away being the Bush family has been known to bribe politicians.
t's funny how the Bush family has business dealings with people and governments who kill Americans. The people who are the biggest threat to our national security are friends and partners with the Bush's.
Makes you wonder who's side the Bush's are on.http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww...
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww...

Answer 3

My dear fellow we are Jews in 1939 in Berlin and Adolph has just been reelected, got the picture?, and the Americans are NOT on their way!

Answer 4

I can't say...it's a forum...not an article. Eyewitnesses on forums and Blogs are notoriously unreliable.

Answer 5

Hearsay is unreliable at best, it's probly not the full story.

Answer 6

check out artciles in www.jeanvaljeanlives.com

Answer 7

that they dont exist