Please read the story in the link before answering the question. It really raises some interesting questions regarding our first amendment rights, alleged government abuse of power and the right to fair housing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-protest20mar20,1,3871605.story
2007-03-29 10:07:11 · 12 answers · asked by Bryan 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
devilsadvocatexxxx: It is a link to the LA Times which I pulled from Yahoo News, but since I work in the tech sector I fully understand and support using discretion online.
2007-03-29 10:29:58 · update #1
I agree with the person from UCLA mentioned in the article. The lady is not breaking the law and this is infringing upon her freedom of speech and she should not be investigated for it unless someone can show without a doubt that she is trying to incite violence.
2007-03-29 10:12:40 · answer #1 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The "right to shelter" isn't a "right" protected by the US constitution. But the right to protest and the right of freedom of speech is.
The law is on her side.
Clearly the woman has a problem living on the same street as the group home. As long as the group home owner is not breaking any laws with the types of inhabitants in her home they should be allowed to stay. Maybe the owners of both homes need to get together and talk face to face instead of the ugly sign posting, maybe the neighbor is overreacting.
2007-03-29 17:16:11 · answer #2 · answered by alwaysbombed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She has every right to put signs in her own yard saying whatever she wants as long as it is not untrue (illegal under the law libel) or threatening physical harm. She has also used every legal tactic she can to block the sex offenders from living in her neighborhood. If they really weren't sex offenders then the new residents have every right to sue her for libel and slander and all they would have to do to prove her wrong is show that they have not been charged with sex offenses. But since they haven't then they obviously are basically admitting that she is right. Besides if they wanted to soothe her they maybe they could just have a resident talk to her directly, explain their past and actually try to work through her issues.
2007-03-29 17:16:45 · answer #3 · answered by Matt M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in general I agree with the right to shelter, however I have a policy of not opening emails from unknown sources, therefore the question can only be answered in general.
2007-03-29 17:26:49 · answer #4 · answered by ati-atihan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She completely has the right to protest this. If there are potentially violent people moving in next door, one should have the right to defend themselves.
2007-03-29 17:15:49 · answer #5 · answered by Gordon Freeman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I don't remember the Constitution guaranteeing a right to Fair Housing..... It does guarantee the right to free speech though...
2007-03-29 17:14:06 · answer #6 · answered by Ben H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no "right" to shelter...but there is a right to free speech.
Apparently the government thinks a newly created right trumps the US Constitution.
2007-03-29 17:12:00 · answer #7 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The old saying goes that " your rights end where mine begin " if you exercise some right, and it infringes upon the rights of others, your rights cease at that point.
You can have the freedom of speech, but you can't slander someone or commit libel. You cant yell fire in a crowded theatre. etc.
ALL of our rights have limitations.
2007-03-29 17:10:33 · answer #8 · answered by Louis G 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
This is America and if you have the right permits to protest you may.
2007-03-29 17:16:16 · answer #9 · answered by vgigaijin 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's see..
A nice old lady, or criminals?
I know who I support. Why are the sex offender out of prison, anyway?
2007-03-29 17:10:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋