The judge has to do something to stay away from the wife and kids, assuming of course the judge is a male. If it is a woman, then she must be too ugly to get laid.
Well up here in Syracuse University, a grad student was photographing a building near campus. She is Muslim and was wearing a head scarf. Two security officers apprehended her and brought her into their office, where they questioned her and forced her to delete her photographs. That is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
has anyone mentioned "free speech zones"? i always thought the whole country was a free speech zone? or the couple who got arrested for wearing anti-bush tee-shirts? http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=3489979
There is Supreme Court caselaw from the mid 20th century that states that requiring a permit to hold a public demonstration does not violate the Constitution. It does not prohibit you from getting your message out, it merely dictates reasonable restrictions as to time, place, and manner of expression. No...it isn't. Syracuse has a property right to not allow people to photograph their buildings. They can exclude any individuals they want. That is the benefit of owning land. As to freedom of religion...profiling does not count. An agency of government has to interfere with the exercise of religion in order to violate. So...unless Syracuse burns down their place of worship, or arrests people during prayer, there is no violation of the 1st amendment....unless of course, you are saying that taking pictures of public buildings is part of the exercise of that particular faith. As an aside...this is twice you have been mistaken on the first amendment. You might want to consult a book on Constitutional Law. It is amazing to me how the first amendment has become so misconstrued and misunderstood in the main.
has absolutely nothing to do with religion at all. She just happened to be Muslim and have a head scarf but denial of photography wasn't a product of her religion. Also, 14th amendment deals with equal protection guarantees, essentially extending due process and some other fundamental rights to all people regardless of race, religion, sex, etc..
You might be right, but I am fairly certain that SU policemen are deputized pursuant to NY statutes as peace/law enforcement officers, and probably count as state actors. So 1st amenedment is not a problem on these grounds but 14th might be.
I never suggested that there may not be an equal protection problem. I opined as to the applicability of the first amendment. However, as deputies/state actors, the officers have the ability to remove persons as directed by the owner of the land, Syracuse. Whether or not the administration is a state actor or not is a separate issue. If the Syracuse police are an independent police force (as at U of H), then they dop not violate the Constitution by removing somebody in accordance with a trespassing complaint made by the administration. The law only offers equal protection under the law. If Syracuse has a policy of not allowing their buildings to be photographed, and it applies to everybody, then there is no violation at all. Under section 1983, any violation must be supported by damages. The individual must show economic damages and can then get attorney fees...ASSUMING that you can get past sovereign immunity.
