Is it legal in most States to protest outside homes? Shouldn't it be illegal everywhere?

No I cannot link to any such posts, because I am not aware of that particular event. Can you link to any thread which relates to it?

 

Well I don't see how any protest on a public walk way would be able to avoid obstructing the walkway. So then it should be illegal.

 

No, I thought that he WAS the other person.

 

I think that there should be a total ban on protesting outside of homes.

 

Well you said that if protesters are on public property and protesting peacefully then they should be able to protest. So if you think that it should be illegal to protest on a highway, this means that you don't think that non-violent protests on a highway are peaceful! Great, we agree! My point is that many people consider a protest to be peaceful as long as it is non-violent.

 

Yes, but I assume that you are open to the possibility that these non-violent protests outside the homes of the judges are not peaceful.

 

A protest can be both non-violent and non-peaceful.

 

Oh, so you didn't bring up the Florida Gubernatorial election?

Yet you are wondering why they aren't bothering with trying to defeat DeSantis?

 

I think that we know the answer to that! Didn't they label the peaceful Tea Party protesters as "terrorists?"

 

My lord…it really took this long for it all to sink into your head??? Holy crap.

 

How could I have possibly known your position on peaceful protests? You could have easily been one of the people who I talked about who consider a protest to be peaceful as long as it is non-violent.

 

No one truly believes protesting illegally is peaceful. That’s on you if you fell for their BS.

 

You're assuming that nobody in this world is an idiot who doesn't think things through.

 

Well, if you have been reading/watching the news or listening to the conservative talk shows lately, you would have noticed Republicans arguing this very same point, as in this article says.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/13/it-legal-protest-outside-justices-homes-law-sugges/

Under federal law, it is 18 USC 1507. State law would vary from state to state where the statute is enforced. It is either a civil code violation, criminal, or both. This article explains it in more detail.

Not necessarily, It all depends on whether or not the protests are civil.

Depends on facts and circumstances. We have had protests in front of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers' homes on hot button issues, in front of the WH and Naval Observatory, sit-ins at college president offices, congressional offices, etc, and in front of the Federal buildings over the past 50 plus years. The right to protest is a fundamental right in our country. And it complaining about it because it you don't like the protesters or what they are protesting is not a valid argument.

 

The right to protest is a fundamental right, or the right to free speech is a fundamental right?

 

Many municipalities have ordinances against protesting private residences. However, some courts have struck down the bans.

Apparently, it's legal. Though it is illegal in CA. Scientology executives have directed their staff to picket private homes of persons who publicly criticized the church, which is their right. This is why it should be illegal, for disingenuous picketing.

And it shouldn't be legal anywhere. One should have a reasonable expectation of a peaceful existence in one's home.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1144/protests-in-neighborhoods

What is needed is a SCOTUS ruling.

 

The right to protest incorporates the right to redress your grievances, the right to free speech, and the right to associate with whom you want to associate. However, every right has its limits and the main issue is how to define "civil."

25 years ago, before I began my professional career, I was a member of another political board run by a newspaper. In that discussion board, there was a poster that put God into everything he posted: politics, sports, food, etc. Another poster took offense to that and believed that his posts should be in the "religion subforum only." I disagreed and said that if we put or limit which forum a person should post because he was using religion to justify his views, then we are limiting his free speech. That premise applies here today as well. If we start limiting where and when people can protest, then we become no different than any other totalitarian regime IMO.

I am not arguing for no controls but there is a middle ground here. If two opposing groups are protesting at the same time, then I want those groups to be separated for public safety reasons while at the same time, allowed to protest in such a manner that they can be seen and show their points while protesting.

 

It is generally legal AS LONG AS the main purpose is to not influence a specific court case. However, if you live in the city, you will hear sirens of police cars, ambulances, etc. Occassionally, where I live, I will hear the screatching sound of tires breaking on the pavement before the vehicle has crashed, especially on the weekends. If you live in the country, then you have "nature sounds" that may or may not be as tranquil as you might think.

Most protests occur during the day or early evening to mid evening hours. Most cities have ordinances where noise becomes a concern, usually around 10pm. Of course, that can include people using their amplifiers to listen to music at a very high volumn or a teenager group who thinks they are the next AC/DC, etc. Just use common sense and stop being so arbritrary.

 

I am? Ok, thanks foe letting me know.

 

As long as it's lawful it's permitted. When it's the Court there is a questionable law on the books that seems to me to be unlikely to survive constitutional challenge. We are all entitled to EQUAL protection of the law. These constant attempts to create laws that protect an aristocracy are generally tossed out by the Court. So, it would be the same Court that they are protesting that would likely throw out their convictions!

Condemn the protesters, but, don't arrest them so long as they conduct themselves lawfully.

 

You're not?

 

Why should the protesters be condemned?

 

Because they are trying to unjustly pressure the Justices. When cases are being argued all of us have the opportunity to submit well written and reasoned briefs that is the legitimate means of persuading the court.

Dems though are desperately eager to change the per election subject.

​

​

 

I want you to think about this for a second and remember something very important. Homes means many things. Like an apartment…in a city… which is surrounded by apartments. Saying that you want to ban people from protesting outside homes means you’re effectively banning most forms of protest.

 

Do you think that these protesters outside the homes of judges are conducting themselves lawfully?