What are we loosing first? 1st or 2nd amendment

[Broz]

OKC officer pulls man over for anti-Obama sign on vehicle


By McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
Published: February 19, 2009

Buzz up!



An Oklahoma City police officer wrongly pulled over a man last week and confiscated an anti-President Barack Obama sign the man had on his vehicle.
Advertisement



The officer misinterpreted the sign as threatening, said Capt. Steve McCool, of the Oklahoma City Police Department, and took the sign, which read "Abort Obama, not the unborn."
Chip Harrison said he was driving to work when a police car followed him for several miles and then signaled for him to pull over.
''I pulled over, knowing I hadn't done anything wrong," Harrison said in a recent phone interview.
When the officer asked Harrison if he knew why he had been pulled over, Harrison said he did not.
''They said, 'It's because of the sign in your window,'" Harrison said.
''It's not meant to be a threat, it's a statement about abortion," Harrison said.
He said he disagrees with the president's position on abortion.
''I asked the officer, 'Do you know what abort means?'" Harrison said. "He said, 'Yeah, it means to kill.' I said, 'No, it means to remove or terminate.'"
Harrison said his sign was to be interpreted as saying something like: Remove Obama from office, not unborn babies from the womb.
The officers confiscated Harrison's sign and gave him a slip of paper that stated he was part of an investigation.
Harrison said he later received a call from a person who said he was a lieutenant supervisor for the Internal Investigations Department and wanted to know his location and return his sign to him.
According to Harrison, the supervisor said the Secret Service had been contacted on the matter and had told them the sign was not a threat to the president.
Harrison was asked if he would like to file a complaint. He said he was not sure but would take the paperwork, just in case.
But his run-in with the law wasn't over yet.
''The Secret Service called and said they were at my house," Harrison said.
After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.
''When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups."
Harrison said he invited the Secret Service agents into the house and they were "very cordial."
''We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said.
He said they interviewed him for about 30 minutes and then left, not finding any evidence Harrison was a threat to the president.
''I'm still in contact with a lawyer right now," Harrison said. "I don't know what I'm going to do."
Harrison said he feels his First Amendment rights were violated.
McCool said the officer who pulled over Harrison misinterpreted the sign.
''We had an officer that his interpretation of the sign was different than what was meant," McCool said. "You've got an officer who had a different thought on what the word 'abort' meant."
McCool said the sign basically meant Obama should be impeached and it was not a threat.
''(The officer) shouldn't have taken the sign," McCool said. "That was (Harrison's) First Amendment right to voice his concern."
McCool said although the sign should not have been confiscated, the situation was made right in the end.
''We always try to do the right thing and in the end we believe we did the right thing by returning the sign," McCool said. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

1st amendment will go first. With a Government controlled media, all other rights will be in peril. If the Gov controls the flow of info, then the Gov controls the power. We all know it is about the power.

Free speech is being called hate speech on a more regular basis. There is already law regarding hate. An illegal action is illegal no matter what the perpetrator is thinking. To make it more illegal based on what the perpetrator is thinking is ludacris. The whole reason for hate legislation is to control free speech. The longer the judiciary uses 'hate' as a means to determine the severity of a crime, the more acceptable it will be for the powers to be to criminalize peoples thoughts.

Who determines what is hate. There are many people out there that say I am hateful for saying that people should work hard for what they get, and the harder a person works the more they get.

Any speech that is contrary to the power structure will be determined to be hate, and illegal. Thus the end of the 1st amendment with out actually taking it out of the constitution. Remember, the constitution is a living document, and needs to evolve with the times. This is a general theme within the liberal community.

So, I believe the 1st amendment will be the first to go. The majority of people will not know that it is gone. It will still be on the books, but not in it's original intent.

This my opinion, go ahead, call me hateful.

Steve

 

[Broz]

One of the coments on this article , a readed stated something like. "When the word abortion is used with reference to obama it is taken as murder. When abortion is used in reference to an unborn child it is refered to as a choice."

I thought that was a good point.

.

 

[Moorespeedr]

1st amendment will go first. With a Government controlled media, all other rights will be in peril. If the Gov controls the flow of info, then the Gov controls the power. We all know it is about the power.

Free speech is being called hate speech on a more regular basis. There is already law regarding hate. An illegal action is illegal no matter what the perpetrator is thinking. To make it more illegal based on what the perpetrator is thinking is ludacris. The whole reason for hate legislation is to control free speech. The longer the judiciary uses 'hate' as a means to determine the severity of a crime, the more acceptable it will be for the powers to be to criminalize peoples thoughts.

Who determines what is hate. There are many people out there that say I am hateful for saying that people should work hard for what they get, and the harder a person works the more they get.

Any speech that is contrary to the power structure will be determined to be hate, and illegal. Thus the end of the 1st amendment with out actually taking it out of the constitution. Remember, the constitution is a living document, and needs to evolve with the times. This is a general theme within the liberal community.

So, I believe the 1st amendment will be the first to go. The majority of people will not know that it is gone. It will still be on the books, but not in it's original intent.

This my opinion, go ahead, call me hateful.

Steve

We this in exactly the same light. I would only add one point.....when you take away the right to free speech, you take away the right to disagree about taking away other rights.
Of course this can be a "chicken or egg" kind of thing. When you take away the arms of the populace, you can then take away any right you wish.
However, our rights to free speech are certainly being eroded on one side of things, much you stated.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I agree with the comments on free speech. I think we will see the 1st Amendment erroded away with "hate speech" legislation.

In this specific case, where the guy was pulled over and the sign taken away, that may have been an honest mis-intepretation or mistake. What's important in this case, is that authorities rightly determined that this was not a threat to the President's well being or life and the sign was returned. If the guy gets harrassed anymore, then it does become a 1st Amendment issue.

Although I dislike President Obama, he is he President of the US and any lead that might imply a threat to him should be followed up. And of course I would never agree with harming any human being for idealogical or political reasons.