talk.politics.misc

On Aug 22, 11:56 pm, David Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:52:56 -0700, ...@ wrote:
> >> I imagine that I was unable to find any case that was like the one you
> >> described, where one private party sued another for violation of free
> >> speech rights.
>
> >Um, why would you think that was the issue?
>
> The best indicator that such a suit would succeed is that it has
> succeeded in the past. The best indicator that such a suit can't
> succeed is that nobody even tries it.

Not true at all.

There is only one indicator that a "suit" can't work, and that would
be if there's a case that says it can't work.

Lawyers make their living trying cases in which an issue has never
been decided before; why would they do that, if the assumption was
that every case that hadn't been tried wasn't worth trying? Also, the
only case law that exists anywhere is cases OF CONTROVERSY.

First of all, I would be asking for a court order asking him to stop
running me off the sidewalk. It would be an injunction, reminding him
that I have a right to be there. It's not exactly a lawsuit. I used
that word in the beginning because Canyon insisted. Of COURSE a judge
would issue it, UNLESS I had no right to be there in the first place.
The judge has two parties before him. The one person has been handing
out fliers legally, the other has run the first person off the
sidewalk. To "laugh (person one) out of court would be a de facto
ruling in favor of the second guy. And since any ruling by a judge is
law, it would violate the First Amendment.

Of course, a judge would never do something like that in the first
place, which is why you'd never see such a law.

The mistake is in thinking that there is only one way to protect your
rights, and of course, that's wrong. Most people WOULD call the cops.
But they also COULD go to court and ask for an injunction.