Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 18th, 2005 #1
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default 1st amendment law on leafletting

This excerpt is from a decent article surveing First amendment law concerning leafletting and handbills. Distribution of TAA is being accomplished in similar manner and so the same principles would adhere. If you are a TAA distributor you may wish to print off some of this authority if you are concerned about being arrested for your exercise of your constitutionally protect free speech rights.


http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...1/20.html#f176

Quote:
Leafleting, Handbilling, and the Like.--In Lovell v. City of Griffin,162 the Court struck down a permit system applying to the distribution of circulars, handbills, or literature of any kind. The First Amendment, the Court said, ''necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest.''163 State courts, responding to what appeared to be a hint in Lovell that prevention of littering and other interests might be sufficient to sustain a flat ban on literature distribution,164 upheld total prohibitions and were reversed. ''Mere legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions . . . . We are of the opinion that the purpose to keep the streets clean and of good appearance is insufficient to justify an ordinance which prohibits a person rightfully on a public street from handing literature to one willing to receive it. Any burden imposed upon the city authorities in cleaning and caring for the streets as an indirect consequence of such distribution results from the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech and press.''165 In Talley v. California,166 the Court struck down an ordinance which banned all handbills that did not carry the name and address of the author, printer, and sponsor; conviction for violating the ordinance was set aside on behalf of one distributing leaflets urging boycotts against certain merchants because of their employment discrimination. The basis of the decision is not readily ascertainable. On the one hand, the Court celebrated anonymity. ''Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all . . . . [I]dentification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussion of public matters of importance.''167 On the other hand, responding to the City's defense that the ordinance was aimed at providing a means to identify those responsible for fraud, false advertising, and the like, the Court noted that it ''is in no manner so limited . . . [and] [t]herefore we do not pass on the validity of an ordinance limited to these or any other supposed evils.''168 Talley's anonymity rationale was strengthened in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, Supp.68 invalidating Ohio's prohibition on the distribution of anonymous campaign literature. There is a ''respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes,'' the Court noted, and neither of the interests asserted by Ohio justified the limitation. The State's interest in informing the electorate was ''plainly insufficient,'' and, while the more weighty interest in preventing fraud in the electoral process may be accomplished by a direct prohibition, it may not be accomplished indirectly by an indiscriminate ban on a whole category of speech. Ohio could not apply the prohibition, therefore, to punish anonymous distribution of pamphlets opposing a referendum on school taxes.

The handbilling cases were distinguished in City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent,Supp.69 in which the Court held that a city may prohibit altogether the use of utility poles for posting of signs. While a city's concern over visual blight could be addressed by an anti-littering ordinance not restricting the expressive activity of distributing handbills, in the case of utility pole signs ''it is the medium of expression itself'' that creates the visual blight. Hence, the city's prohibition, unlike a prohibition on Distributing handbills, was narrowly tailored to curtail no more speech than necessary to accomplish the city's legitimate purpose.Supp.70 Ten years later, however, the Court unanimously invalidated a town's broad ban on residential signs that permitted only residential identification signs, ''for sale'' signs, and signs warning of safety hazards.Supp.71 Prohibiting homeowners from displaying political, religious, or personal messages on their own property entirely foreclosed ''a venerable means of communication that is unique and important,'' and that is ''an unusually cheap form of communication'' without viable alternatives for many residents.Supp.72 The ban was thus reminiscent of total bans on leafleting, distribution of literature, and door-to-door solicitation that the Court had struck down in the 1930s and 1940s. The prohibition in Vincent was distinguished as not removing a ''uniquely valuable or important mode of communication,'' and as not impairing citizens' ability to communicate.Supp.73
 
Old October 18th, 2005 #2
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

a case which may be of interest from those notes:

Quote:
U.S. Supreme Court
SCHNEIDER v. NEW JERSEY, 308 U.S. 147 (1939)
308 U.S. 147
SCHNEIDER
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY (TOWN OF IRVINGTON).
YOUNG
v.
PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
SNYDER
v.
CITY OF MILWAUKEE.
NICHOLS et al.
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
Nos. 11, 13, 18, and 29.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 13-16, 1939.
Decided Nov. 22, 1939.
No. 11
:

[308 U.S. 147, 149] Messrs. Joseph F. Rutherford and Olin R. Moyle both of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner.

Mr. Robert I. Morris, of Newark, N.J., for respondent.
No. 13:
Messrs. Osmond K. Fraenkel, of New York City, and A. L. Wirin, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Messrs. Frederick von Schrader, Ray L. Chesebro, Leon T. David, and Bourke Jones, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
No. 18:
[308 U.S. 147, 152] Mr. A. W. Richter, of Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioner.
Mr. Carl F. Zeidler, of Milwaukee, Wis., for respondent.
No. 29:
[308 U.S. 147, 153] Messrs. Sidney S. Grant, of Boston, Mass., and Osmond K. Fraenkel, of New York City, for appellants.
Messrs. Edward O. Proctor and Paul A. Dever, both of Boston, Mass., for appellee.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Four cases are here, each of which presents the question whether regulations embodied in a municipal ordinance [308 U.S. 147, 154] abridge the freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, U.S.C.A. 1

No. 13.

The Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles, 1936, provides:

'Sec. 28.00. 'Hand-Bill' shall mean any hand-bill, dodger, commercial advertising circular, folder, booklet, letter, card, pamphlet, sheet, poster, sticker, banner, notice or other written, printed or painted matter calculated to attract attention of the public.'
'Sec. 2801. No person shall distribute any hand-bill to or among pedestrians along or upon any street, sidewalk or park, or to passengers on any street car, or throw, place or attach any hand-bill in, to or upon any automobile or other vehicle.'
The appellant was charged in the Municipal Court with a violation of Sec. 28.01. Upon his trial it ws proved that he distributed handbills to pedestrians on a public sidewalk and had more than three hundred in his possession for that purpose. Judgment of conviction was entered and sentence imposed. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County affirmed the judgment. 2 That court being the highest court in the State authorized to pass upon such a case, an appeal to this court was allowed.

The handbill which the appellant was distributing bore a notice of a meeting to be held under the auspices of 'Friends Lincoln Brigade' at which speakers would discuss the war in Spain.

The court below sustained the validity of the ordinance on the ground that experience shows littering of the [308 U.S. 147, 155] streets results from the indiscriminate distribution of handbills. 3 It held that the right of free expression is not absolute but subject to reasonable regulation and that the ordinance does not transgress the bounds of reasonableness. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , 58 S.Ct. 666, was distinguished on the ground that the ordinance there in question prohibited distribution anywhere within the city while the one involved forbids distribution in a very limited number of places.

No. 18.

An ordinance of the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, provides: 'It is hereby made unlawful for any person ... to ... throw ... paper ... or to circulate or distribute any circular, hand-bills, cards, posters, dodgers, or other printed or advertising matter ... in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley, wharf, boat landing, dock or ther public place, park or ground within the City of Milwaukee.'

The petitioner, who was acting as a picket, stood in the street in front of a meat market and distributed to passing pedestrians hand-bills which pertained to a labor dispute with the meat market, set forth the position of organized labor with respect to the market, and asked citizens to refrain from patronizing it. Some of the bills were thrown in the street by the persons to whom they were given and it resulted that many of the papers lay in the gutter and in the street. The police officers who arrested the petitioner and charged him with a violation [308 U.S. 147, 156] of the ordinance did not arrest any of those who received the bills and threw them away. The testimony was that the action of the officers accorded with a policy of the police department in enforcement of the ordinance to the effect that, when such distribution resulted in littering of the streets, the one who was the cause of the littering, that is, he who passed out the bills, was arrested rather than those who received them and afterwards threw them away. The Milwaukee County court found the petitioner guilty and fined him. On appeal the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 4


The court held that the purpose of the ordinance was to prevent an unsightly, untidy, and offensive condition of the sidewalks. It distinguished Lovell v. City of Griffin, supra, on the ground that the ordinance there considered manifestly was not aimed at prevention of littering of the streets. The court approved the administrative construction of the ordinance by the police officials and felt that this construction sustained its validity. The court said: 'Unless and until delivery of the handbills was shown to result in a littering of the streets their distribution was not interfered with.'

No. 29.

An ordinance of the City of Worcester, Massachusetts, provides: 'No person shall distribute in, or place upon any street or way, any placard, handbill, flyer, poster, advertisement or paper of any description.'

The appellants distributed in a street leaflets announcing a protest meeting in connection with the administration of State unemployment insurance. They did not throw any of the leaflets on the sidewalk or scatter them. [308 U.S. 147, 157] Some of those to whom the leaflets were handed threw them on the sidewalk and the street, with the result that some thirty were lying about.

The appellants were arrested and charged with a violation of the ordinance. The Superior Court of Worcester County rendered a judgment of conviction and imposed sentence. The Supreme Judicial Court overruled exceptions. 5 That court held the ordinance a valid regulation of the use of the streets and sought thus to distinguish it from the one involved in Lovell v. City of Griffin, supra, which the court said was not such a regulation. Referring to the ordinance the court said: 'It interferes in no way with the publication of anything in the city of Worcester, except only that it excludes the public streets and ways from the places available for free distribution. It leaves open for such distribution all other places in the city, public and private.'

No. 11.

An ordinance of the Town of Irvington, New Jersey, provides: 'No person except as in this ordinance provided shall canvass, solicit, distribute circulars, or other matter, or call from house to house in the Town of Irvington without first having reported to and received a written permit from the Chief of Police or the officer in charge of Police Headquarters.' It further enacts that a permit to canvass shall specify the number of hours or days it will be in effect; that the canvasser must make an application giving his name, address, age, height, weight, place of birth, whether or not previously arrested or convicted of crime, by whom employed, address of employer, clothing worn, and description of project for which he is can- [308 U.S. 147, 158] vassing; that each applicant shall be fingerprinted and photographed; that the Chief of Police shall refuse a permit in all cases where the application, or further investigation made at the officer's discretion, shows that the canvasser is not of good character or is canvassing for a project not free from fraud; that canvassing may only be done between 9 A. M. and 5 P.M.; that the canvasser must furnish a photograph of himself which is to be attached to the permit; that the permittee must exhibit the permit to any police officer or other person upon request, must be courteous to all persons in canvassing, must not importune or annoy the town's inhabitants or conduct himself in an unlawful manner and must, at the expiration of the permit, surrender it at police headquarters. Persons delivering goods, merchandise, or other articles in the regular course of business to the premises of persons ordering, or entitled to receive the same, are exempted from the operation of the ordinance. Violation is punishable by fine or imprisonment.

The petitioner was arrested and charged with canvassing without a permit. The proofs show that she is a member of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and, as such, certified by the society to be one of 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. In this capacity she called from house to house in the town at all hours of the day and night and showed to the occupants a so called testimony and identification card signed by the society. The card stated that she would leave some booklets discussing problems affecting the person interviewed; and that, by contributing a small sum, that person would make possible the printing of more booklets which could be placed in the hands of others. The card certified that the petitioner was an ordained minister sent forth by the society, which is organized to preach the gospel of God's kingdom, and cited passages from the Bible with respect to the obligation so to preach. The petitioner left, or [308 U.S. 147, 159] offered to leave, the books or booklets with the occupants of the houses visited. She did not apply for, or obtain, a permit pursuant to the ordinance because she conscientiously believed that so to do would be an act of disobedience to the command of Almighty God.

The petitioner was convicted in the Recorder's Court. The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the judgment. On a further appeal the Supreme Court affirmed. 6 The Court of Errors and Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court. 7


The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's conduct amounted to the solicitation and acceptance of money contributions without a permit, and held the ordinance prohibiting such action a valid regulation, aimed at protecting occupants and others from disturbance and annoyance and preventing unknown strangers from visiting houses by day and night. It overruled the petitioner's contention that the measure denies or unreasonably restricts freedom of speech or freedom of the press. The Court of Errors and Appeals thought Lovell v. City of Griffin, supra, not controlling, since the ordinance in that case prohibited all distribution of printed matter and was not limited to ways which might be regarded as consistent with the maintenance of public order or as involving disorderly conduct, molestation of inhabitants, or misuse or littering of the streets, whereas the ordinance here involved is aimed at canvassing or soliciting, subjects not embraced in that condemned in the Lovell case. The Court said: 'A municipality may protect its citizens against fraudulent solicitation, and when it enacts an ordinance to do so, all persons are required to abide thereby. The ordinance in question was evidently designed for that purpose ....' [308 U.S. 147, 160] The freedom of speech and of the press secured by the First Amendment, U.S.C.A.Const., against abridgment by the United States is similarly secured to all persons by the Fourteenth against abridgment by a state. 8


Although a municipality may enact regulations in the interest of the public safety, health, welfare or convenience, these may not abridge the individual liberties secured by the Constitution to those who wish to speak, write, print or circulate information or opinion.

Municipal authorities, as trustees for the public, have the duty to keep their communities' streets open and available for movement of people and property, the primary purpose to which the streets are dedicated. So long as legislation to this end does not abridge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature, it may lawfully regulate the conduct of those using the streets. For example, a person could not exercise this liberty by taking his stand in the middle of a crowded street, contrary to traffic regulations, and maintain his position to the stoppage of all traffic; a group of distributors could not insist upon a constitutional right to form a cordon across the street and to allow no pedestrian to pass who did not accept a tendered leaflet; nor does the guarantee of freedom of speech or of the press deprive a municipality of power to enact regulations against [308 U.S. 147, 161] throwing literature broadcast in the streets. Prohibition of such conduct would not abridge the constitutional liberty since such activity bears no necessary relationship to the freedom to speak, write, print or distribute information or opinion.

This court has characterized the freedom of speech and that of the press as fundamental personal rights and liberties. 9 The phrase is not an empty one and was not lightly used. It reflects the belief of the framers of the Constitution that exercise of the rights lies at the foundation of free government by free men. It stresses, as do many opinions of this court, the importance of preventing the restriction of enjoyment of these liberties.

In every case, therefore, where legislative abridgment of the rights is asserted, the courts should be astute to examine the effect of the challenged legislation. Mere legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions. And so, as cases arise, the delicate and difficult task falls upon the courts to weigh the circumstances and to appraise the substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of the rights.

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, supra, this court held void an ordinance which forbade the distribution by hand or otherwise of literature of any kind without written permission from the city manager. The opinion pointed out that the ordinance was not limited to obscene and immoral literature or that which advocated unlawful conduct, placed no limit on the privilege of distribution in the interest of public order, was not aimed to prevent molestation of inhabitants or misuse or littering of [308 U.S. 147, 162] streets, and was without limitation as to time or place of distribution. The court said that, whatever the motive, the ordinance was bad because it imposed penalties for the distribution of pamphlets, which had become historical weapons in the defense of liberty, by subjecting such distribution to license and censorship; and that the ordinance was void on its face, because it abridged the freedom of the press. Similarly in Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 , 59 S.Ct. 954, an ordinance was held void on its face because it provided for previous administrative censorship of the exercise of the right of speech and assembly in appropriate public places.

The Los Angeles, the Milwaukee, and the Worcester ordinances under review do not purport to license distribution but all of them absolutely prohibit it in the streets and, one of them, in other public places as well.

The motive of the legislation under attack in Numbers 13, 18 and 29 is held by the courts below to be the prevention of littering of the streets and, although the alleged offenders were not charged with themselves scattering paper in the streets, their convictions were sustained upon the theory that distribution by them encouraged or resulted in such littering. We are of opinion that the purpose to keep the streets clean and of good appearance is insufficient to justify an ordinance which prohibits a person rightfully on a public street from handing literature to one willing to receive it. Any burden imposed upon the city authorities in cleaning and caring for the streets as an indirect consequence of such distribution results from the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech and press. This constitutional protection does not deprive a city of all power to prevent street littering. There are obvious methods of preventing littering. Amongst these is the punishment of those who actually throw papers on the streets. [308 U.S. 147, 163] It is argued that the circumstance that in the actual enforcement of the Milwaukee ordinance the distributor is arrested only if those who receive the literature throw it in the streets, renders it valid. But, even as thus construed, the ordinance cannot be enforced without unconstitutionally abridging the liberty of free speech. As we have pointed out, the public convenience in respect of cleanliness of the streets does not justify an exertion of the police power which invades the free communication of information and opinion secured by the Constitution.

It is suggested that the Los Angeles and Worcester ordinances are valid because their operation is limited to streets and alleys and leaves persons free to distribute printed matter in other public places. But, as we have said, the streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.

While it affects others, the Irvington ordinance drawn in question in No. 11, as construed below, affects all those, who, like the petitioner, desire to impart information and opinion to citizens at their homes. If it covers the petitioner's activities it equally applies to one who wishes to present his views on political, social or economic questions. The ordinance is not limited to those who canvass for private profit; nor is it merely the common type of ordinance requiring some form of registration or license of hawkers, or peddlers. It is not a general ordinance to prohibit trespassing. It bans unlicensed communication of any views or the advocacy of any cause from door to door, and permits canvassing only subject to the power of a police officer to determine, as a censor, what literature may be distributed from house to house and who may distribute it. The applicant must submit to that [308 U.S. 147, 164] officer's judgment evidence as to his good character and as to the absence of fraud in the 'project' he proposes to promote or the literature he intends to distribute, and must undergo a burdensome and inquisitorial examination, including photographing and fingerprinting. In the end, his liberty to communicate with the residents of the town at their homes depends upon the exercise of the officer's discretion.

As said in Lovell v. City of Griffin, supra, pamphlets have proved most effective instruments in the dissemination of opinion. And perhaps the most effective way of bringing them to the notice of individuals is their distribution at the homes of the people. On this method of communication the ordinance imposes censorship, abuse of which engendered the struggle in England which eventuated in the establishment of the doctrine of the freedom of the press embodied in our Constitution. To require a censorship through license which makes impossible the free and unhampered distribution of pamphlets strikes at the very heart of the constitutional guarantees.

Conceding that fraudulent appeals may be made in the name of charity and religion, we hold a municipality cannot, for this reason, require all who wish to disseminate ideas to present them first to police authorities for their consideration and approval, with a discretion in the police to say some ideas may, while others may not, be carried to the homes of citizens; some persons may, while others may not, disseminate information from house to house. Frauds may be denounced as offenses and punished by law. Trespasses may similarly be forbidden. If it is said that these means are less efficient and convenient than bestowal of power on police authorities to decide what information may be disseminated from house to house, and who may impart the information, the answer is that considerations of this sort do not empower a municipality to abridge freedom of speech and press. [308 U.S. 147, 165] We are not to be taken as holding that commercial soliciting and canvassing may not be subjected to such regulation as the ordinance requires. Nor do we hold that the town may not fix reasonable hours when canvassing may be done by persons having such objects as the petitioner. Doubtless there are other features of such activities which may be regulated in the public interest without prior licensing or other invasion of constitutional liberty. We do hold, however, that the ordinance in question, as applied to the petitioner's conduct, is void, and she cannot be punished for acting without a permit.

The judgment in each case is reversed and the causes are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. So ordered.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS is of opinion that the judgment in each case should be affirmed.
 
Old October 22nd, 2005 #3
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Rounder
Default

Hey A.E. Isn't there something a little less ambiguous, and more revelant to passing out so-called "White Supremacist" or "Hate" literature ?? I mean surely the right to pass out our kind of literature had been specifically ruled upon by the US Supreme Court at some time or another. Or has it ? And assuming it has, where do I find documentation of that court ruling?
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old October 22nd, 2005 #4
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

If something clear and concise can be had, we might have more distributors.
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Old October 22nd, 2005 #5
Todd in FL
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: orlando, fl
Posts: 3,683
Default

Rounder and ohgolly,

The whole purpose of the courts is to "interpret" something like what AE posted. If it were clear, concise and less ambigous then the police would interpret law before it got to the courts and that is what the founding fathers did not want. The whole of the law isn't just the constitution and bill of rights. It composes things like the Federalist papers and case law too not to mention common law.

I like it better that way since the newsmedia and local police think they can arbitrarily make up what is illegal and what is not.

Let them arrest us. It won't get past the 24 hour window when the prosecutor has to write up a formal indictment. No prosecutor in the usa will hold a white supremacist for leafleting. That's why they had to send in a agent provacatuer in the Matt Hale case... they origninaly had nothing on him.

If they do arrest us and hold us for a few hours it will be big news and draw millions to the VNN website.
 
Old October 22nd, 2005 #6
Todd in FL
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: orlando, fl
Posts: 3,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohgolly
If something clear and concise can be had, we might have more distributors.
As soon as potential distributors see us getting arrested and then quickly released they'll want to join in on the fun too. Just think, you get your pic in the paper, a big write up on the net, TV coverage and then the cops look stoopid for arresting you during the whole process... instant hero status for the would be distributor. Hundreds will be sending Rounder money for tabloids so they can get arrested too!!!
 
Old October 23rd, 2005 #7
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder
Hey A.E. Isn't there something a little less ambiguous, and more revelant to passing out so-called "White Supremacist" or "Hate" literature ?? I mean surely the right to pass out our kind of literature had been specifically ruled upon by the US Supreme Court at some time or another. Or has it ? And assuming it has, where do I find documentation of that court ruling?
Well, right now there are several relevant cases. But this line of leafletting cases, several of which came down during the Forties concerning Jehovah's Witnesses, are the ones that I think would most directly concern taboid distribution as people are tending to do it. But I appreciate that it would be good to have a nice case name to hang our hat on that socalled hate literature is in fact lawful, and I will look into that next week.
 
Old October 23rd, 2005 #8
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd in FL
....
....... It won't get past the 24 hour window when the prosecutor has to write up a formal indictment. No prosecutor in the usa will hold a white supremacist for leafleting.....If they do arrest us and hold us for a few hours it will be big news and draw millions to the VNN website.
You're right about that. You can see that in the past four years or so, there were maybe 2 groups of NA guys pinched during flyering, and both groups beat the rap.

Goes without saying that people engaged in distribution should not only be following the law but also have sanitized their vehicles for any contraband including unlawful weapons. Weapons can be a tricky business because what's legal in one state is illegal in another, and there are some fine lines. Best to err on the side of going entirely unarmed if you are doing distribution. It's worth the self defense risk not to get caught in any problems along those lines. I'm thinking not just firearms here, of course some people are not supposed to have firearms at all for various reasons, but even stuff like folding knives and so forth. Also those things would tar up our side. Distrbutino of TAA tabloid is both lawful and has been done by people in an entirely peaceable manner, and I believe it's going to stay that way. It's certainly in our best interests that this continues as successfully as it has so far.
 
Old October 23rd, 2005 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

We should never accept "hate" as any kind of marker for what we're doing. It is nothing but a jewish smear. "Hate" has no legal meaning, no historical meaning -- it has no meaning at all. It is purely a label created by jews to smear white men resisting genocide.
 
Old October 23rd, 2005 #10
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Rounder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
We should never accept "hate" as any kind of marker for what we're doing. It is nothing but a jewish smear. "Hate" has no legal meaning, no historical meaning -- it has no meaning at all. It is purely a label created by jews to smear white men resisting genocide.
If you ask 10 average people for the definition of "hate", you'll get 10 different definitions. But yet, almost everybody is convinced they know the true definition.

You're right though, Alex.

Hey A.E., what we need is a short "notice" we can fit onto a business card that provides the US Supreme Court's ruling, and that our distributors can show cops if they're ever stopped and questioned for passing out tAAs. So how bout rigging up something, and post it here, so I can have some cards printed to send to our distributors along with their shipments of TAA.

Whatchasay ??
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old October 24th, 2005 #11
8Man
"moderate" radical
 
8Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 33 Thomas St NY 10007
Posts: 3,420
8Man
Default

Sure would be great to get at least a few TAA#4's made available on the UCSB campus soon. The ADL is pressuring them to get certified as a "Hate Free Zone". See: List of Local Hate-Free Places Excludes UCSB
__________________
FreedomSite "Israel's values are Canada's values" Canadian PM Paul Martin, Nov. 13 2005
ZundelSite "An attack on Israel is an attack on Canada" Canadian PM Stephen Harper, Feb. 16 2010
 
Old October 24th, 2005 #12
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Rounder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8Man
Sure would be great to get at least a few TAA#4's made available on the UCSB campus soon. The ADL is pressuring them to get certified as a "Hate Free Zone". See: List of Local Hate-Free Places Excludes UCSB
And you can make it happen, 8Man. So whatchasay ??
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old October 24th, 2005 #13
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder
.......
Hey A.E., what we need is a short "notice" we can fit onto a business card that provides the US Supreme Court's ruling, and that our distributors can show cops if they're ever stopped and questioned for passing out tAAs. So how bout rigging up something, and post it here, so I can have some cards printed to send to our distributors along with their shipments of TAA.

Whatchasay ??
That is a great idea. I can't get it done this week though. I will put that on my list. Excellent idea.
 
Old October 24th, 2005 #14
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Rounder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes
That is a great idea. I can't get it done this week though. I will put that on my list. Excellent idea.
I knew I could count on you, A.E. Thanks.

Hell, you might even phone the ACLU just for kicks. And they might provide some valuable insights/references/documents/case precedents, etc.

Many more VNN'ers will distribute TAAs, if we provide them with proof there's nothing to fear from cops.
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old October 31st, 2005 #15
Ironguard1940
Senior Member
 
Ironguard1940's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,979
Ironguard1940
Default First Amendment law on leafleting

It would seem on the face of it that there are several cases that have struck down ordinances specifically aimed at curbing leafleting. Some of these seem to have been local littering ordinances. Forgive me if I am vague with the word 'seems', but I am no law expert and some of what I read is a bit ambiguous to me. Let me say now for the record that if Ron and I are ever stopped for leafleting-while-White, we plan to tell the cops exactly what we are doing and let them charge us with whatever jew-friendly local littering ordinance they so choose. These tinhorn cops do not scare me with their bluster about 'this may violate the city's littering ordinance,' blah, blah, blah. They have to say that for their ZOG masters. It may not hurt to have a copy of these cases handy, or even transcripts of the recent cases in which WNs who were distributing pro-White literature were acquitted. However, do not pin all your hopes on this. The cops will charge you if they see fit, and if they do, you will have to go to court. You will be acquitted, and after you are found not guilty you have the right to slap the city that charged you with a civil rights lawsuit for your trouble. If the donut-eaters do charge you, do not be rude, obey them, even if you feel like smashing their heads in or running over them with your car. You have the right to remain silent if you so choose, and the 5 words, "I have nothing to say" works wonders. If they ask to search your vehicle, refuse them, but if they do anyway, let them. Note this in court. They will most likely confiscate your TAAs; do not fight them over it. You will get your day in court and in the sun. A few journalists that write for the zionist jewsmedia have written that the distributors of TAA and other pro-White publications hope to get an arrest because of the publicity it would generate. I do not hope to get charged with anything but if I do, the legal system in the city or town I get charged in will wish they had never been born. And I might just take some of their money home with me as well!!! White Southern Solidarity. :box: :box:
 
Old November 14th, 2005 #16
SA Mann
National Socialist
 
SA Mann's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,446
SA Mann
Post Dealing With Police/Courts

Ironguard1940 gives some pretty good advice. I'd like to add a few things.

While Engaged In a TAA distro:
1.Obey all traffic laws. This includes wearing your seatbelt, using your turn signal. Before you go out take a minute and check out your vehicle. Don't go out with a burned out headlight or a burned out turn signal/tail light.
2. If cars are behind you, pull over and let them around. You do not want to be charged with "impeding traffic".

If you are stopped by Police while doing a TAA distro:
1. Remain calm, let the Police start the conversation. They might have only stopped you for a burned out tail light.
2. Since you are operating a motor vehicle they do have the right to ask for your license and registration. You do not have to provide the identies of any other occupants in your vehicle.If you feel so inclinded to answer their questions, do so truthfully. Otherwise stick to "I have nothing to say." Don't think you can outwit the cops, chances are you won't. The cops learned all the mind games as part of their training. I would be very hesitant to "admit" to anything. You'll get your day in court.
3. Don't have a badass attitude with the cops. Do not make any moves that could be considered aggressive. Stay in your vehicle with your hands on the steering wheel unless instructed otherwise. If they put handcuffs on you, do not resist. If you as much as pull away that is considered resisting arrest and they can use damn near any means to place you under control. They may be trampling all over your rights, but you'll get your day in court. Remember they have all the power at this point.
3. The best thing you can do is listen and remember. If you can write down names, badge numbers, car numbers. If you can't write them down, do your best to memorize them.
4. After several minutes ask them if you are free to go. If you are told no, politely ask what you are being detained for? You of course never consent to a vehicle search period. If you see them tearing through your car and seizing your TAAs, ask them for a receipt for your property.
5. If you are issued a summons-sign it. In most places a signature on a minor summons is your bond. Guess what happens if you don't sign it? You'll be arrested and definitely not score any points with a judge.
6. If you are taken to the police station chances are they just want to photograph you through their 2 way window. Do not "confess" to anything or sign any statement.
When You Get To Court:
1. Never accuse the cops of lying (even if they are). Remember the judges and the cops know each other and you are in their arena.
2. If you are found guilty, appeal and demand a jury trial. This option will vary state by state.

Most of our folks already know this stuff, but a friendly reminder doesn't hurt.
 
Old November 14th, 2005 #17
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Rounder
Default

Good advice by Ironguard1940 and SA Mann, two highly experienced distributors. TAA distributors really don't have much to worry about from the cops, though.


HEY A.E. !!! Let's not drop the ball on this. Get Alex's approval for the final version so I have the cards printed. OK ??
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old November 14th, 2005 #18
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

Jawohl! I will.
 
Old November 23rd, 2005 #19
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder
Good advice by Ironguard1940 and SA Mann, two highly experienced distributors. TAA distributors really don't have much to worry about from the cops, though.


HEY A.E. !!! Let's not drop the ball on this. Get Alex's approval for the final version so I have the cards printed. OK ??
Alex OK'd the card, see the other thread for text. Can we have confirmation that somebody will print them? Hibernian? Anything needed to facilitate this, just ask.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=25656
 
Old November 24th, 2005 #20
VikingWarrior
Kill The 'Kwa
 
VikingWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vinland
Posts: 1,473
Blog Entries: 1
VikingWarrior
Lightbulb Itz Free Speech

TAA distributors need the card - it gives us amo if we get stopped by the cops for our legal distribution of our newspaper. It will help TAA distibutors ( like myself ) to be a bit more "forth coming" in our reach as we know the law is in our favor and we can prove it.

It will be great to give our card to a misinformed (ADL trained ) cops - it will rock his ( or her ) world.

Reminder....

Be nice to law and enforcement - but once they arrest you - GIVE THEM THE CARD - and from that point say..."I have nothing to say".

Itz not illegal to give out The Aryan Alternative - But the Jews who we fight against - may one day - make it illegal - We must FIGHT to make that NOT happen.

The Aryan Alternative - Itz Free Speech in a Newspaper !
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44 PM.
Page generated in 0.17026 seconds.